Howell v. Howell
137 S. Ct. 1400, 85 U.S.L.W. 4245, 197 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA), federal law preempts state courts from ordering a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for the reduction in their share of divisible military retirement pay that results from the veteran's post-divorce waiver of that pay to receive disability benefits.
Facts:
- In 1991, John Howell and Sandra Howell divorced, and their divorce decree awarded Sandra fifty percent of John's future military retirement pay.
- John retired from the Air Force in 1992, and both he and Sandra began receiving their respective shares of his military retirement pay.
- Approximately thirteen years later, the Department of Veterans Affairs found John to be 20% disabled due to a service-related shoulder injury.
- To receive non-taxable disability benefits, John waived about $250 per month of his military retirement pay.
- This waiver correspondingly reduced the amount of retirement pay Sandra received by about $125 per month.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Howell filed a motion in an Arizona family court (court of first instance) seeking enforcement of the original divorce decree to recover the funds lost due to John Howell's waiver.
- The family court ordered John to ensure Sandra received her full 50% share of his retirement pay, without regard to the disability waiver.
- John Howell (appellant) appealed the family court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Arizona (the state's highest court) affirmed the lower court's order, reasoning that federal preemption did not apply because the waiver occurred after the initial division of assets.
- John Howell petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act preempt a state court from ordering a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for the loss in the spouse's share of retirement pay caused by the veteran's post-divorce waiver of retirement pay in order to receive disability benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. A state court order requiring a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in retirement pay caused by a waiver for disability benefits is preempted by federal law. The Court's prior decision in Mansell v. Mansell established that the USFSPA forbids states from treating military retirement pay waived for disability benefits as community property divisible upon divorce. An order of indemnification or reimbursement is functionally equivalent to dividing the non-divisible, waived pay. The timing of the waiver—whether before or after the divorce—is irrelevant because the spouse's interest in the retirement pay was always subject to the future contingency of a waiver. State courts cannot 'vest' an interest in property that federal law prohibits them from dividing, and labeling the order as 'indemnification' rather than 'division' is a semantic distinction without a legal difference.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. Justice Thomas agreed with the majority's conclusion and judgment but wrote separately to state his disagreement with the Court's reliance on 'purposes and objectives' preemption. He believes this framework is an illegitimate basis for preempting state law. However, he concluded that this framework was not necessary to support the judgment in this case, as the rest of the Court's reasoning was sufficient.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and expands the preemption doctrine established in Mansell v. Mansell, creating a bright-line rule that federal law prohibits state courts from circumventing the USFSPA's protections for disability-related waived retirement pay. The Court clarified that the timing of a veteran's disability waiver is immaterial and that state courts cannot use alternative remedies, such as 'indemnification' or 'reimbursement,' to indirectly divide assets that Congress has expressly shielded from division. The ruling provides certainty for military veterans but may create financial hardship for former spouses, who can no longer rely on state courts to restore the value of their share of retirement benefits following a post-divorce waiver.
