Military- Fair or Unjust

family xj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Location
Jacksonville NC
So after serving 20 years I looked forward to retiring. On July 31 this year I retired. Middle of August I get a letter in the mail stating that my ex-wife gets 40% of my retirement before taxes. This is all do to a law passed in 1982 called the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act. Basically retirement pay is called retainer pay and if you were married 10 years in the service the ex-spouse can get up to 50%. The federal law makes your pay joint property. So out of my $1651 a month before taxes she gets $691. Sound fair? Add in that I also have to pay her $1000 child support and now I am negative on the retirement. Thats almost $1700 a month from me. Basically she gets $21000 a year from me. That's Minimum Wage and she is remarried to a guy in the Army now.

If you think it is unjust and this only targets the military you can help change the law by signing the petition and passing the word along. Here is a link to the petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/USFSPA/petition.html

More info can be read here
http://www.ulsg.org/

Please pass the word along to anyone that you now that currently serves or has served.
 
Id 1099 her @$$ at the end of the year. Make sure she pays taxes on that. I would also go back to court and have the child support reevaluated.
 
I would def go back to court and have the child support re-evaluated. Show the court the documentation about her getting 40% of your retirement. Maybe they will consider that partial payment of child support.
 
dmoore714 said:
I would def go back to court and have the child support re-evaluated. Show the court the documentation about her getting 40% of your retirement. Maybe they will consider that partial payment of child support.
Click to expand...

x2

It's not much, but it'll get you $500 or so.
 
My Uncle was in the Coast Guard. He cheated on my Aunt several time and she finally kicked him out. She's been living with a guy for over 20 years not. She won't marry him because she will lose 50% of his retirement.

Are you sure there is no provision if she gets remarried?
 
see its reasons like this Im getting out(at my 6 year mark) when I get back from this deployment Im on now.The military is rediculous in soooo many ways,I probably should say no more.I know that if I retired out of this junk I would be PISSED if that was the case.

I work with 2 guys that are in the same situation as you sir sorry for your situation.
 
My opinion is probably opposite everyone else.. They are your kids. You got married for better or worse. I don't know your situation if she worked in the home or out. Not sure what happened that you both decided it wasn't worth working out. But this is what happens. As the the amounts that's what you agreed to in your divorce.

You should be thanking your fellow brother/army mate for stepping in and taking over. To me that is where the problem is. If people had any values and respect they would just hop on some piece of ass and pick up the the last guy left off they'd be like why did you abandon your family. And if was you.... we'll that's a different story..
 
Normally any alimony/icome-based "owings" end when the otehr spouse remarries. Whichmakes sense to me.
Seems to me if she's remarried (espif its another Army guy, soshe'llbe rakingin thsi same thing twice) it should be cut.

What I don't understand is, why this legislation was passed in the first place. E.g. what is the logic of it? Normally i'm pretty good atseeing 2+sides to a story... this one is eluding me.
 
It was probably tacked on as an amendment to a defense appropriations bill by democrats.

The worst part is the retiree probably has to pay taxes on the full amount while the ex doesn't pay a dime.

In some states, child support is set at as high as 33% of gross per child and can take 100% of after tax income with no changes allowed for down turn in income. There are fathers in prison for the crime of being poor.
 
Ah. Sooooo....

After a little reading, here is the critical point.
First lets make sure the "blame" is in the correct place.
The 1982 USFSPA law was enacted following a supreme ct case, Mcarty v Mcarty, which was essentially questioning the rights of states to dictate (or not) whether miltary retirement paywas considered "communityproperty" or not. E.g. is that a Fed deicision or state.
The decision was, Yes, it it up to the states.
So all this law does is say that it is up to your state (NC) to decide if that retirement $$ is joint property. It does NOT direct where the money goes.
E.g. you beef is w/ the State.

Now... not sure I agree w/ this... but it does kind of make sense.
If the retiremnet $$ earned while married is "property", the she has a joint claim to it. Just like if you bought a house or a boat or any kind of investment together, she own half. The only thing different here the payoff from said investment is coming ow, many years later... just like if you'd just sold the house you bought when married...

http://www.military.com/benefits/retiree/uniformed-services-former-spouses-protection-act

it's sucks for you - butit does actually make sense (IF you buy that retirement pay is "property"). So I'm actually changing my vote to "fair".
 
okay..ive never seen a military paycheck...does retirement pay come out of each check just like taxes. I mean..is military retirement benefits the same as like a 401k where you pay in over a life time and your employter (the military here) matches?
 
so its not money earned while married? it isnt given to you until after retirement, correct?
 
BigRedB2 said:
so its not money earned while married? it isnt given to you until after retirement, correct?
Click to expand...

It IS earned while married. That's the problem here.
You just don't GET it until later.

Like a CD or other investment.
 
Does it suck...yes. But I don't see this as being different than anything else that was up for grabs, except the fact you're getting the pay out now. Had that been some other sort of 'investment' while married, and would have been tangible, it woulda been divied up at that point in time. If any of the rest of us have any sort of retirement fund, that gets split up or used at the time of the divorce.
 
When I got divorced the first time, it was specifically written in the agreement, that I could not lay claim on her retirement or she couldn't lay claim on mine.

Truthfully, as far as I know, she can only lay claim to half of what was accrued during the marriage. On the other hand, if she has any retirement you are also entitled to part of that.
 
consult an attorney...I believe the retirement pay cn be used as paymen for the child support provided sh has re-married
 
SkyHiK5 said:
consult an attorney...I believe the retirement pay cn be used as paymen for the child support provided sh has re-married
Click to expand...

Given that it is considered joint property, and hence partially "hers" to begin with... this is doubtful.
But i'd be curious to hear an attourney's word on it.
 
Back
Top