Burts v. Burts
2011 Alas. LEXIS 127
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Leon Burts, a military retiree, divorced Ann after 15 years of marriage; TRICARE health insurance was at issue as a marital asset.
- Superior Court treated 75% of Burts' TRICARE as marital property and valued it at $125,959, allocating it to Burts.
- Ann's expert valued TRICARE as a marital asset supporting a 62/38 marital estate split (before pensions are factored in).
- Leon has a son with special needs (Tyler) who remains insured under Burts' TRICARE until age 23; Ann receives the marital home.
- On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed characterizing TRICARE as marital property but remanded to reconsider its value due to valuation error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRICARE is a marital asset. | Burts argues TRICARE is speculative and preempted by federal law. | Ann contends TRICARE can be valued and is properly marital property. | TRICARE is marital property. |
| Whether TRICARE’s value was properly determined. | Burts contends the court used an improper valuation basis. | Ann relies on expert valuation for TRICARE. | Valuation was erroneous; remand to recalculate. |
| Whether federal preemption limits state division of TRICARE. | Burts argues field/conflict preemption bars state treatment of TRICARE as property. | Ann argues state courts may consider TRICARE under applicable federal framework. | Preemption does not prevent treating TRICARE as marital property. |
| Whether the overall distribution remains equitable after remand. | Leon contends the distribution was based on incorrect asset treatment. | Ann’s position relies on unequal division justified by circumstances. | Distribution is reviewed for abuse of discretion; unequal division may be warranted; remand to adjust for updated TRICARE value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (benefits for retired military depend on congressional discretion)
- Young v. Lowery, 221 P.3d 1006 (Alaska 2009) (state courts’ authority to divide military retirement benefits)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (disposable retired pay under USFSPA for marital division)
- McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (federal pensions preempt state domestic relations law)
- Ethelbah v. Walker, 225 P.3d 1082 (Alaska 2010) (considering health status in valuation methods)
- Hansen v. Hansen, 119 P.3d 1005 (Alaska 2005) (health insurance benefits may be valued as marital property)
- Hillis v. Hillis, not provided (not provided) (contextual comparison re subsidies not convertible to cash (note: not a valid official reporter citation; omitted if necessary))