Dapp v. Dapp
211 Md. App. 323
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Dapp v. Dapp concerns division of railroad retirement benefits under a marital settlement agreement incorporated into a 1988 divorce.Paragraph 12 granted Wife one-half of Husband's pension, including all benefits, if she did not remarry within five years.
- Husband retired in 2009, began receiving Tier I and Tier II benefits, with Wife receiving nothing at that time.
- Wife filed a 2010 enforcement action seeking one-half of all retirement benefits under Paragraph 12; Husband argued only Tier II and related benefits were divisible.
- The circuit court found Paragraph 12 ambiguous and ordered a hearing; it ultimately held Wife entitled to one-half of all benefits, including Tier I, via equitable enforcement.
- The court issued four components: past Tier II, future Tier II, past Tier I, and future Tier I payments, pending appeal; on appeal, the Tier I components are reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tier I benefits can be divided under state law. | Dapp; Wife argues Paragraph 12 covers all benefits. | Dapp; anti-assignment provision bars division. | Tier I not divisible; private agreement unenforceable. |
| Whether the circuit court could enforce an agreement to divide Tier I benefits via payments from general assets. | Wife seeks enforcement through assets, not direct benefit division. | Anti-assignment clause prohibits such enforcement. | Enforcement not permitted; agreement void. |
| Whether Supremacy Clause precludes enforcement of any part of Paragraph 12. | Wife relies on contract to receive future benefits. | Federal statute bars assignment; enforcement impossible. | Circuit court erred; must be reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1979) (anti-assignment of railroad retirement Tier I benefits; supremacy of federal law)
- Pleasant v. Pleasant, 97 Md. App. 711 (Md. 1993) (social security benefits not subject to division; analogy to RR Act)
- In re Marriage of Anderson, 252 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2010) (court cannot divide future Social Security-like benefits under state law)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 370 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 2006) (state courts cannot enforce private agreements dividing future Social Security benefits)
- Hulstrom, In re Marriage of, 342 Ill. App. 3d 262, 794 N.E.2d 980 (Ill. App. 2003) (transfer of future benefits invalid; not enforceable)
- Gentry v. Gentry, 938 S.W.2d 231 (Ark. 1997) (anti-assignment similar to RR Act applies to Social Security analog)
- Boulter v. Boulter, 930 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1997) (future social security benefits not contractible; cannot transfer)
- United States v. Eggen, 984 F.2d 848 (7th Cir. 1993) (supporting rejection of assignment of future benefits)