Andrean v. Secretary of the United States Army
1993 WL 544838, 840 F. Supp. 1414, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18481 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court order is considered issued 'in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction' under the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (FUSFSPA) if the order is final and unappealable under that state's law, even if the order was contrary to controlling appellate precedent at the time it was issued.
Facts:
- On August 19, 1984, the Kansas Court of Appeals held in 'Grant v. Grant' that military retirement income was not marital property subject to division in a divorce.
- On August 24, 1984, the District Court of Leavenworth County, Kansas, issued a divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Donna Andrean and Charles M. Andrean.
- As part of the decree, the court ordered that one-third of Charles M. Andrean's military retirement benefits become the sole and separate property of Donna Andrean.
- Charles M. Andrean did not appeal this divorce decree.
- Instead of appealing, Charles M. Andrean moved for relief from the judgment, which the Leavenworth court denied in January 1985, a decision he also did not appeal.
- In November 1992, Charles M. Andrean retired from the United States Army.
- Donna Andrean subsequently served the Secretary of the Army with the state court's order, requesting direct payments from the retirement pay.
- The Secretary of the Army denied the request, reasoning that the order was not enforceable under Kansas law at the time it was made due to the 'Grant v. Grant' decision.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Andrean filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against the Secretary of the Army, a finance official, and her ex-husband, Charles M. Andrean.
- The federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- Defendant Charles M. Andrean filed a motion to dismiss, which the court converted to a motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff Donna Andrean filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The case is before the U.S. District Court on these competing motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a final, unappealed state court order dividing military retirement pay qualify as an order issued 'in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction' under the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (FUSFSPA), requiring the Secretary of the Army to make direct payments, even if the order was contrary to state appellate precedent at the time it was issued?
Opinions:
Majority - Lungstrum, District Judge
Yes. A state court order that is final and binding under the laws of that state is considered an order 'issued in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction' for the purposes of FUSFSPA, and the Secretary must enforce it. The court reasoned that the state divorce court had subject matter jurisdiction over the marital property; its error was in its legal conclusion about the character of the retirement pay, not in its fundamental power to hear the case. Because Charles M. Andrean failed to appeal the initial judgment, it became final and binding under the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, his subsequent motion for relief from judgment, which could have voided the order, was denied, and he failed to appeal that denial, making the order 'once and for all declared valid and enforceable' in Kansas. Therefore, the phrase 'in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction' refers to the finality and enforceability of the order within the state's legal system, not its substantive correctness, creating a 'plainly defined and peremptory duty' for the Secretary to make payments.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of federal agency review of state court orders under FUSFSPA. It establishes that the federal government's role is not to re-litigate the substantive merits of a state court's decision, but to determine its finality and enforceability within the state's own legal system. The ruling strongly reinforces the principles of finality of judgments and res judicata, preventing federal agencies from collaterally attacking state court orders that the state itself considers valid. This provides certainty for former spouses relying on unappealed divorce decrees and limits the ability of military finance services to second-guess the legal reasoning of state courts.
