Glover v. Ranney
2013 Alas. LEXIS 166
Alaska2013Background
- Jason Glover and Beverly Ranney divorced after a marriage from December 1999; Jason served in the U.S. Air Force throughout the marriage.
- The parties executed a mediated property settlement: 55% of non‑retirement marital estate to Beverly, and each to receive 50% of the marital share of Jason’s military pension calculated by the time‑rule with a coverture numerator of 122 months.
- After entry of amended findings and decree, the parties submitted competing QDROs; the superior court adopted Beverly’s proposed order (but used 137.462 months as the coverture numerator).
- The superior court’s QDRO: awards Beverly 50% of the marital portion of Jason’s disposable retired pay (time‑rule), directs payments from disposable pay to the extent permitted by law, includes an indemnity clause to protect Beverly from reductions (e.g., disability offsets), and orders a 55% Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election for Beverly.
- Jason appealed claiming: he was denied an evidentiary hearing; the court violated federal law (dividing gross pay, disability pay, and potentially >50% of disposable retired pay); the court ignored the settlement and stipulated 122 months; the court awarded excess survivor benefits and required him to pay for them; and the court barred children from SBP coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Glover's Argument | Ranney's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of evidentiary hearing | Court refused to let Glover present evidence/expert | Parties had stipulated facts; dispute was legal interpretation | No error — no hearing required because no genuine factual dispute (de novo review) |
| 2. Division violated federal law (gross pay/disability/ >50% cap) | Order effectively awards from gross, divides waived disability pay, could result in >50% of disposable pay | Order awards time‑rule percentage of disposable retired pay, directs payments from disposable pay, and contains indemnity clause; no sum‑certain award | No error — order consistent with 10 U.S.C. §1408 and precedent; indemnity clause permissible (de novo review) |
| 3. Inclusion and scope of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) | SBP not in settlement; court exceeded parties’ agreement and overcompensated Ranney | Settlement does not expressly exclude SBP; courts may implicitly include SBP to protect former spouse’s interest | Court may include SBP but failed to explain awarding 55% SBP that could exceed Ranney’s living benefit; remand for reconsideration of SBP percentage |
| 4. Change to coverture numerator (length of marriage) | Superior court violated the settlement by changing 122 months to 137.462 months | Ranney conceded numerator was wrong and asked for correction on remand | Reversed and remanded — court clearly erred in changing stipulated 122 months without explanation |
| 5. Excluding children from SBP coverage | Glover: court abused discretion; children should be covered | Argument inadequately briefed / waived | Waived — not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2009) (evidentiary‑hearing standard; no hearing if no genuine factual dispute)
- Young v. Lowery, 221 P.3d 1006 (Alaska 2009) (discusses limits on dividing disposable retired pay and indemnity clause approach)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (state courts cannot divide retired pay waived for VA disability)
- Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257 (Alaska 1992) (follows Mansell; disability‑waived pay not divisible)
- Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1998) (survivor annuity can be awarded to effectuate equitable division)
- Wahl v. Wahl, 945 P.2d 1229 (Alaska 1997) (trial court may award survivor annuity to protect former spouse’s interest)