Johnson v. Johnson

Majority - Associate Chief Justice Nehring

1) No, the statute of limitations does not bar an action to enforce an ongoing right to collect a portion of pension retirement benefits because each payment is subject to its own discrete statute of limitations. The Court extended the rationale from Seeley v. Park, which held that installments for alimony or child support become final judgments as they are due, to pension payments. The Court reasoned that Ms. Zoric was granted a clear and unequivocal right to '1/2 of 10 years of [Mr. Johnson]'s military retirement' in the 1984 divorce decree, and while the enforcement of that right was delayed, her entitlement to payments was not disputed. Each pension payment Mr. Johnson received was thus subject to its own statute of limitations, meaning the clock for enforcement began when each individual payment became due, not at the time of the divorce. 2) No, the court of appeals did not err when it refused to consider Mr. Johnson's laches argument because it was inadequately briefed. The Court reaffirmed that appellate courts will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed, which requires contentions, reasons, specific citations to authority, and analysis applying the law to the facts. Mr. Johnson's brief on laches failed to lay out the elements of laches, provide specific analysis within the cited cases, or discuss the comparability of New York law (which he cited) to Utah law, thus falling short of the required briefing standards. 3) Yes, the court of appeals erred when it affirmed the district court's determination of Ms. Zoric's share of Mr. Johnson's retirement benefit because the district court erroneously believed it was bound by the marital foundation approach, thereby misunderstanding and misapplying the law. The Court clarified that while Woodward v. Woodward established the 'time rule' formula for determining the marital fraction of a pension, it did not specify how to determine the monthly benefit amount subject to equitable distribution, especially regarding post-divorce increases. Rejecting both the rigid 'bright line approach' (post-divorce increases are separate property) and the 'marital foundation approach' (all post-divorce increases are marital property) as binding, the Court held that district courts have considerable discretion and should employ a 'context-specific approach.' This approach requires considering factors such as when the property was acquired, its ultimate source, and the extent to which the non-employee spouse's contributions during the marriage impacted the employee spouse's career trajectory and subsequent pay grade increases. Given the insufficient record on the nature of Mr. Johnson's post-divorce promotions, the case was remanded for further fact-finding to determine an equitable distribution, rather than simply applying the marital foundation approach.