424 P.3d 390
Alaska2018Background
- Robert Gross (USCG retiree) and Dawn Wilson divorced; their March 2014 property settlement awarded Wilson 50% of Gross’s total USCG retirement pay, and required Gross to pay any shortfall if the USCG would not directly pay disability portions to her.
- During mediation and on the record, counsel and the mediator stated the parties agreed to divide “aggregate” retirement including disability and to require Gross to reimburse Wilson if he took actions reducing her share.
- Gross later reduced monthly payments by an amount equal to 50% of his VA disability payments; Wilson moved to enforce the settlement and obtain arrearages.
- Gross opposed enforcement, arguing (1) the USFSPA/Mansell preclude division of VA disability benefits and (2) he misunderstood the agreement; he also sought relief under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b).
- The superior court (via special master) enforced the agreement, found Gross knew and agreed to the terms, concluded Rule 60(b) provided no basis for relief, and ordered Gross to resume payments and pay arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Gross's Argument | Wilson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement provision requiring Gross to pay amounts equal to 50% of his disability benefits is void under federal law (USFSPA/Mansell) | The decree illegally divided nondivisible VA disability pay; thus the judgment is void and unenforceable | The parties contractually agreed to an amount equal to 50% of aggregate retirement (including disability) and Gross voluntarily relinquished any nondivisible interest | Judgment not void; even if erroneous under federal law, it is voidable not void; no Rule 60(b)(4) relief because no lack of jurisdiction or due process violation |
| Whether Gross can obtain relief from the final decree under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b) | He misunderstood/was surprised by paragraph 11 and thus seeks relief (mistake/surprise or other reason) | No adequate 60(b) basis; parties negotiated with counsel and mediator and affirmed the agreement on the record | Denial of 60(b) relief affirmed: claims untimely for (1)-(3), no (5) showing, and (6) not satisfied because no extraordinary circumstances or destroyed assumption |
| Whether a state court may enforce indemnification or reimbursement that effectively pays a former spouse from disability benefits | Indemnification here impermissibly requires paying disability benefits and is precluded by Mansell and Howell | The court is enforcing a contractual payment obligation (resume agreed payments); it is not creating a new indemnity that divides disability benefits | Enforcement affirmed: court ordered Gross to resume payments under the settlement and collect arrearages; Howell prohibits state-ordered indemnification that circumvents Mansell, but does not bar enforcing a voluntary contractual obligation to pay agreed sums |
| Whether the superior court abused discretion in enforcing the settlement and finding Gross knew/agreed to terms | Gross claims surprise and misunderstanding | Record (mediated agreement, on-the-record statements by counsel, mediator, and Gross) shows informed assent | No abuse of discretion; factual findings that Gross understood and accepted paragraph 11 were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (USFSPA precludes state courts from treating retirement pay waived for VA disability as divisible property)
- Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257 (Alaska 1992) (Alaska application of Mansell: state courts lack authority to equitably divide VA disability benefits received in place of waived retirement pay)
- Young v. Lowery, 221 P.3d 1006 (Alaska 2009) (Alaska allowed indemnification for reductions in divisible retirement pay occasioned by veteran actions)
- Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017) (U.S. Supreme Court held state-ordered reimbursement/indemnification that effectively requires a veteran to pay waived retirement amounts to a former spouse is preempted)
- Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281 (Alaska 2013) (Rule 60(b)(4) relief limited to judgments that are void for lack of jurisdiction or due process; erroneous judgments are not automatically void)