Burnell v. Burnell
2012 ME 24
| Me. | 2012Background
- Franklin and Lynette Burnell divorced in 1989; judgment awarded Franklin his National Guard Pension Plan and reserved Lynette's rights to the plan under Federal Law.
- Franklin retired from the Air National Guard in 2002 and began receiving benefits in 2006.
- Lynette learned in 2009 that Franklin was collecting the pension and sought her share through the DFAS process.
- DFAS denied Lynette's request but provided a form to 'clarify' the court order by specifying a share or amount for Lynette.
- Lynette filed a January 2010 motion to modify to fix a specific amount/percentage retroactive to 2002 and to recover attorney fees.
- In March 2011, the district court held the pension provision ambiguous and awarded Lynette 11/54 of the benefits; judgment amended accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the divorce judgment unambiguous in awarding Franklin the full pension? | Burnell argues the judgment unambiguously awards Franklin full pension. | Burnell contends the clause reserving Lynette rights creates ambiguity and a potential share. | The judgment is unambiguous; Franklin's full pension awarded. |
| Does USFSPA create an independent right for Lynette to a share of the pension? | Burnell asserts USFSPA does not independently entitle Lynette to a share absent a court-ordered division. | Burnell argues USFSPA permits division and future adjustment of rights. | USFSPA does not create independent rights to benefits; only enforces court-ordered division. |
| How should the divorce judgment be interpreted under state law in light of USFSPA? | Burnell maintains the award to Franklin reflects a state-law property distribution. | Burnell contends federal law salvages a potential Lynette share through the reserved rights clause. | Divorce judgment unambiguously awards Franklin the pension; Lynette's rights are future possibilities, not current share. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsdell v. Worden, 2011 ME 55 (Me. 2011) (de novo review of whether a divorce judgment is reasonably susceptible to ambiguity)
- Gillis v. Gillis, 15 A.3d 720 (Me. 2011) (USFSPA governs distribution of disposable retired pay in divorce; state-law property division controls a share)
- Koszegi v. Erickson, 855 A.2d 1168 (Me. 2004) (USFSPA governs direct payments but does not create independent rights in a former spouse)
- Stotler v. Wood, 687 A.2d 636 (Me. 1996) (USFSPA does not alter whether pension is property under state law)
- McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1981) (prior framework; Congress later countermanded McCarty via USFSPA permitting division of military retirement pay)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1989) (USFSPA allows state courts to treat military retirement pay as property for division on divorce)
- Depot v. Depot, 2006 ME 25 (Me. 2006) (acknowledges Congressional countermand of McCarty by making military retirement benefits subject to division)