Gay M. Pfister - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          Congress, in enacting the military retirement system then in                
          place, “designed to accomplish two major goals:  to provide for             
          the retired service member, and to meet the personnel management            
          needs of the active military forces.”  Id. at 232-233.  The Court           
          held that “The community property division of retired pay has the           
          potential to frustrate each of these objectives.”  Id. at 233.              
          In noting that “in no area has the Court accorded Congress                  
          greater deference than in the conduct and control of military               
          affairs”, the Court invalidated the California law at issue as              
          being preempted by Federal law.  Id. at 236.                                
               In response, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former            
          Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408 (2000).  In           
          general, 10 U.S.C. section 1408(c)(1), provides, inter alia                 
               a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable           
               to a member * * * either as property solely of the member or           
               as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with            
               the law of the jurisdiction of such court.                             
               The provisions of the USFSPA were intended “to restore the             
          law to what it was when the courts were permitted to apply State            
          divorce laws to military retired pay”.  S. Rept. 97-502, at 5               
          (1982).  The USFSPA did not create any right or entitlement to              
          military retired pay, nor did it either require or prohibit any             

          relating to the equitable division of marital property vest a               
          spouse with interests analogous to those she would possess in a             
          community property State.  See Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581,            
          584 n.2 (1989); S. Rept. 97-502, at 2, 3 (1982).                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011