Rose v. Rose
481 U.S. 619, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2060, 95 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal law protecting veterans' disability benefits from attachment, levy, or seizure does not pre-empt a state court's authority to order a veteran to pay child support and to enforce that order through contempt proceedings.
Facts:
- Charlie Wayne Rose, a totally disabled Vietnam veteran, married Barbara Ann McNeil Rose in 1973, and they had two children.
- The couple divorced in October 1983.
- Rose's sole source of income consisted of federal benefits, including veterans' disability benefits, veterans' aid and attendance benefits, and Social Security disability benefits.
- A Tennessee state court ordered Rose to pay $800 per month in child support after considering his federal benefits as part of his financial resources.
- After a dispute over the amount, Rose paid only $90 for child support in a subsequent month, an amount equal to the dependents' benefits he received from the Veterans' Administration.
- Rose argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to compel him to use his federal disability benefits for child support, claiming that power rested exclusively with federal agencies.
Procedural Posture:
- The Circuit Court for Washington County, Tennessee, a trial court, ordered Charlie Rose to pay child support as part of a divorce decree.
- Barbara Rose filed a petition for contempt, and the court clarified its order.
- Barbara Rose filed a second petition for contempt after Charlie Rose failed to pay the full amount.
- The Circuit Court found Charlie Rose in willful contempt and ordered him incarcerated.
- The State of Tennessee became a party, and the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in its favor, upholding the constitutionality of the state statute and the court's jurisdiction.
- Charlie Rose, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of Barbara Rose and the State of Tennessee.
- The Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court, denied Charlie Rose's application for permission to appeal.
- Charlie Rose filed a jurisdictional statement with the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
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, which protects veterans' benefits from attachment, levy, or seizure, pre-empt a state court's authority to order a veteran to pay child support from those benefits and to hold the veteran in contempt for failing to comply?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. Federal law does not pre-empt a state court's authority to order and enforce child support payments from a veteran's disability benefits. State laws governing domestic relations are pre-empted only when they do 'major damage' to 'clear and substantial' federal interests, a standard not met here. The court reasoned that veterans' disability benefits are intended to support not only the veteran but also their family, so using them for child support furthers, rather than undermines, congressional intent. The anti-attachment statute (38 U.S.C. § 3101(a)) is meant to protect veterans from creditors, not to shield them from their familial support obligations. This case is distinguishable from precedents like Wissner and Ridgway because in those cases, federal law designated the veteran as the exclusive beneficiary of the funds, whereas here, Congress intended the benefits to support the entire family.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. Federal law pre-empts the state court's action. The plain language of the anti-attachment statute (38 U.S.C. § 3101(a)) prohibits any 'seizure' of benefits, and holding a veteran in contempt to force payment is a seizure. The majority creates an exception out of whole cloth, ignoring the statute's unqualified sweep. The fact that Congress created a specific federal mechanism for the VA Administrator to apportion benefits for dependents indicates its intent to occupy the field. Furthermore, Congress has repeatedly and explicitly chosen to exclude veterans' disability benefits from other federal statutes that permit garnishment of federal funds for child support, demonstrating a clear intent to protect these specific benefits from such state court actions.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. The holding should rest on the fundamental distinction between familial support obligations and ordinary commercial debts. The anti-attachment provision is intended to protect a veteran and his family from the claims of outside creditors, not to protect the veteran from claims by his own family. The common law has always treated the obligation to support one's family with special sanctity, and this principle should be read into the statute. The Court's prior decision in Ridgway, which equated family support with business debts, was anomalous and should not be extended.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The state court's contempt order does not violate the federal anti-attachment statute. The majority's reliance on legislative 'purpose' to override clear statutory text is flawed. The issue can be resolved on the narrower ground that a contempt order is not an 'attachment, levy, or seizure' of property. Instead, it operates on the veteran's person, compelling him to satisfy an obligation so important that the state permits imprisonment for default. Therefore, the state court's action does not directly conflict with the text of the federal statute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that family law, particularly child support, remains within the primary purview of state courts, even when federal benefits are involved. It carves out a significant family-support exception to the broad protections of federal anti-attachment statutes, distinguishing such obligations from ordinary debts or community property divisions. By focusing on the congressional purpose behind the benefits—supporting the veteran and their family—the Court established a precedent that allows state courts to use their contempt powers to enforce child support orders against individuals whose income might otherwise be unreachable. This ruling empowers state courts to ensure parental responsibilities are met, preventing federal benefit laws from being used as a shield to evade fundamental family duties.
