485 P.3d 991
Wash. Ct. App.2021Background
- Geoffrey and Heidi Kaufman divorced in 2008; their negotiated property settlement was fully incorporated into the dissolution decree. The decree divided community property (including Geoffrey’s military retirement) and awarded Heidi permanent, nonmodifiable spousal maintenance equal to 50% of Geoffrey’s monthly VA disability or 50% of the retirement he waived to receive VA benefits, with entitlement to proportionate increases if the VA amount rose.
- At the time of the decree Geoffrey had waived a portion of his retirement to receive VA disability (40% rating); a military pay division order was entered the same day.
- In 2018 the VA increased Geoffrey’s rating to 60%, permitting him to receive full retirement and VA disability concurrently; Geoffrey ceased spousal maintenance payments, asserting his obligation ended.
- Heidi moved to enforce the maintenance provision; the trial court found the maintenance term contractual and enforceable, awarded back payments plus attorney fees and entered judgment against Geoffrey.
- Geoffrey appealed, arguing the maintenance term was void ab initio because federal law (USFSPA and related precedents) preempts state orders dividing disability or indemnifying for waived retirement, and thus the unappealed decree cannot have res judicata effect; he also challenged the fee award.
- The Court of Appeals followed In re Marriage of Weiser, held the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction, applied res judicata to the unappealed decree, affirmed enforcement and the attorney-fee awards, and granted Heidi fees on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heidi) | Defendant's Argument (Geoffrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unappealed 2008 dissolution decree is barred from enforcement by res judicata because it allegedly violated federal law | Res judicata bars collateral attack on a final, unappealed decree; the decree is a binding contract incorporated into the judgment | The decree is void ab initio due to federal preemption; therefore res judicata does not apply | Res judicata applies; unappealed decree is final and enforceable; legal error does not negate res judicata |
| Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or inherent power to enter an order that divided disability-related benefits or indemnified for waived retirement | Superior courts have broad constitutional and statutory jurisdiction over family/property matters; an error of law is not jurisdictional | Federal preemption deprived the state court of authority to enter such an order, rendering it void | Court had authority to adjudicate dissolution/property claims; an incorrect preemption analysis is a legal error, not a jurisdictional defect; follow Weiser over Tupper |
| Whether the maintenance clause required payments after Geoffrey began receiving concurrent retirement and disability pay | The clause is a contractual measure using VA waiver/disability as the agreed benchmark for maintenance; obligation continues as written | Geoffrey claims he fully complied and that the clause does not obligate payments once retirement and VA are paid together | Trial court treated the clause as a binding contractual maintenance obligation; Geoffrey did not press an interpretive argument on appeal; enforcement affirmed |
| Whether Heidi was entitled to attorney fees for enforcement and on appeal | RCW 26.18.160 allows prevailing party in enforcement of maintenance to recover fees; she prevailed | The settlement provided each party pays own fees, so fees should be barred | Trial court reasonably read the fee-allocation clause as applying to the original settlement negotiation; award under RCW 26.18.160 upheld; appellate fees granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (USFSPA preempts state-court division of military disability retirement; res judicata consequences left to state law)
- Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017) (state courts cannot order indemnification/reimbursement to restore waived retirement replaced by disability benefits)
- McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981) (pre-McCarty rule that federal law preempted state division of military retirement; prompted USFSPA)
- In re Marriage of Kraft, 119 Wn.2d 438 (1992) (Washington: disability retirement may be considered as an economic circumstance but not dollar-for-dollar offset or divisible community property)
- Perkins v. Perkins, 107 Wn. App. 313 (2001) (trial court impermissibly required spouse to pay maintenance equal to waived disposable military retirement)
- In re Marriage of Weiser, 14 Wn. App. 2d 884 (2020) (applied res judicata to enforce an unappealed dissolution decree despite later disability-waiver change)
- In re Marriage of Tupper, 15 Wn. App. 2d 796 (2020) (contrary panel held certain benefit-division orders void for lack of power; Court of Appeals here declines to follow Tupper)
- Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist., 196 Wn.2d 353 (2020) (clarifies distinction between legal error and lack of subject matter jurisdiction; authority to grant particular relief is a component of jurisdiction)
- Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1 (1968) (historical precedent treating errors of law as nonjurisdictional)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 98 Wn.2d 46 (1982) (pre-McCarty divisions regarded as errors of law, not subject to collateral attack)