Lexplug logoLexplug

McCarty v. McCarty

Supreme Court of United States
453 U.S. 210 (1981)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal law governing military non-disability retirement pay preempts state community property laws, thereby precluding state courts from dividing such pay as a marital asset upon the dissolution of a marriage.


Facts:

  • Richard John McCarty and Patricia Ann McCarty were married in 1957.
  • Shortly after their marriage, Richard commenced active duty in the United States Army, where he served as a physician.
  • The couple was married for approximately 19 years, during which Richard was assigned to tours of duty in several states and Washington D.C.
  • The couple separated in October 1976.
  • At the time of their separation, Richard held the rank of Colonel and had served 18 of the 20 years required to be eligible for retirement with pay.
  • After the separation, Richard completed 20 years of service and began receiving military retired pay.

Procedural Posture:

  • Richard McCarty filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Superior Court of California.
  • The Superior Court held that Richard's military retirement benefits were subject to division as quasi-community property and ordered him to pay a portion to Patricia McCarty.
  • Richard McCarty, as appellant, sought review in the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's order.
  • The California Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for a hearing.
  • The United States Supreme Court postponed jurisdiction and then noted probable jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Locked

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 federal law preclude a state court from dividing a service member's military nondisability retired pay pursuant to state community property laws upon the dissolution of a marriage?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Blackmun

Yes, federal law precludes a state court from dividing military nondisability retired pay pursuant to state community property laws. State family law must do 'major damage' to 'clear and substantial' federal interests to be preempted. The federal military retirement system confers no entitlement to retired pay upon the service member's spouse; rather, it is a 'personal entitlement' of the member. This is evidenced by provisions allowing the service member to designate a beneficiary for unpaid arrearages and to unilaterally choose whether to provide a survivor annuity. Dividing the pay would threaten the federal objectives of providing for the retiree and managing military personnel, as it would diminish the retiree's income and reduce the incentive to retire, which is crucial for maintaining a 'young and vigorous' military force.


Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist

No, federal law does not preclude a state court from dividing military retired pay. The Court fails to apply the established preemption standard from Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, which requires Congress to have 'positively required by direct enactment' that state law be preempted. The statutes governing military retirement pay lack the clear, prohibitive language found in other federal benefit schemes where preemption was found. The majority improperly infers a broad preemption from narrow provisions concerning arrearages and survivor annuities, and its reasoning contradicts prior precedent by finding preemption in the absence of any federal community property concept, rather than from a congressional decision to limit one.



Analysis:

This decision established that military retired pay was a federal entitlement immune from state community property laws, resolving a conflict among state courts on the issue. The ruling underscored that even in the traditional state domain of family law, a significant conflict with the objectives of a federal benefits program could trigger preemption under the Supremacy Clause. The decision created substantial hardship for former spouses of military members, which prompted a direct legislative response from Congress, which enacted the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA) in 1982 to effectively overrule this holding and permit state courts to treat retired pay as marital property.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query McCarty v. McCarty (1981) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for McCarty v. McCarty