Diana Douglas/Eddie Douglas v. Eddie Douglas/Diana Douglas
454 S.W.3d 591
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Diana and Eddie Douglas divorced in 1989; the decree awarded Diana a community interest in Eddie’s military retirement using a formula referencing 150 months of marriage and the member’s hypothetical retirement pay as a Captain at divorce.
- Eddie retired in March 2009 as a Colonel with 372 months of service and $7,719 gross monthly retired pay. Diana applied to DFAS for payment; DFAS refused because the decree’s language was not expressed as a fixed dollar or a percentage of disposable retired pay.
- Diana moved for clarification and enforcement in 2009; after hearings the trial court (2012) ordered Diana to receive 4.096% of Eddie’s disposable retired pay and awarded $9,877.54 in arrearages; no attorney’s fees were awarded and requested findings were not issued.
- On appeal both parties challenged the trial court’s calculation: Diana argued the Berry formula should produce a $437.50 monthly award (50% of the hypothetical retired pay of $877), Eddie argued for a much smaller amount using a different denominator and multiplier.
- The Court of Appeals held the decree employed the Berry formula, determined Eddie’s hypothetical retired gross pay at divorce was $877 (per USFSPA calculation), converted Diana’s share to a percentage of actual disposable pay, and corrected the arrearage amount and interest remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diana) | Defendant's Argument (Eddie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper formula/valuation for Diana’s share of military retirement | Decree uses Berry formula; value based on hypothetical retired pay at divorce as Captain, yielding $437.50/month (50% of $877) | Decree should use denominator of total months at retirement (Taggart or hybrid), producing a much smaller share tied to $7,719 actual pay | Court: Decree follows Berry; hypothetical retired pay computed under USFSPA = $877; Diana’s share = 50% of $877 = $437.50 -> converted to 5.68078766679622% of actual disposable pay (trial court erred) |
| Whether award must be expressed as fixed dollar or percentage of disposable pay for DFAS enforcement | Decree’s language contemplates COLAs and permits conversion; award should be percentage of disposable pay for enforceability | Agreed conversion needed but argued for different percentage | Court: Percentage expression required for enforceability under USFSPA; converted Diana’s $437.50 to 5.68078766679622% of Eddie’s disposable retired pay |
| Arrearage amount owed to Diana | Diana sought arrearages dating from Eddie’s retirement to judgment based on her correct share | Eddie contended trial court’s $9,877.54 was incorrect and that credits/payments reduce arrearage to zero | Court: Trial court’s arrearage figure was incorrect; arrearages through judgment = $17,937.50 less credits $2,958.46 = $14,979.04; remand to award pre- and post-judgment interest |
| Award of attorney’s fees to Eddie | N/A (Diana sought fees below) | Eddie claimed he was prevailing party and entitled to fees under Fam. Code §9.014 | Court: Diana was prevailing party on main issues (share and arrearages); trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Eddie fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (standard of review for post-divorce clarification/enforcement; abuse of discretion)
- Berry v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1983) (formula for apportioning and valuing community interest in retirement benefits when member retires after divorce)
- Taggart v. Taggart, 552 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. 1977) (earlier apportionment approach cited but limited by Berry)
- Grier v. Grier, 731 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1987) (valuation of community interest based on rank at date of divorce; discussed relative to USFSPA)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1989) (federal limits on state treatment of military retirement pay; impacted interpretation of Grier)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (appellate review when trial court issues no findings; implied findings not conclusive when reporter and clerk records available)