Hurt v. Jones-Hurt
168 A.3d 992
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Divorce in 2004 awarded Wife alimony and one-third of Husband’s military pension.
- Husband later had disability rating increase, enabling a waiver of pension in favor of disability benefits; disability benefits are non-taxable and not marital property under federal law.
- Waiver reduced Husband’s pension but increased Wife’s potential share of total benefits; Wife’s share calculated from pre-waiver marital portion.
- Circuit Court issued multiple orders and, after hearings, awarded Wife 26.57% of disposable retired pay; later nunc pro tunc and supplemental orders refined dispositional payments.
- In Howell v. Howell (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a line of Maryland cases and held that federal law preempts state division of military retirement benefits when a retirement waiver occurs; Court must reverse the circuit court’s judgment.
- Court ultimately holds Howell controls, reversing the circuit court’s disposition of Husband’s military benefits; costs on Appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howell preempts state division of military retirement pay after waiver | Hurt: Maryland cases enforce shared retirement rights despite waivers | Jones-Hurt: State can enforce original division despite later waiver | Howell applies; reversal warranted |
| Whether the circuit court could award Wife a portion of disability benefits | Hurt: disability benefits are not divisible under Mansell/USFSPA | Jones-Hurt: prior orders should be interpreted to protect Wife’s share | overturned; no award of disability benefits to Wife allowed under Howell |
| Whether post-judgment contingencies must be factored into property valuation | Hurt: contingency should reduce Wife’s share | Jones-Hurt: contingencies may be accounted for in later proceedings | Howell requires adjusting approach; pre-divorce valuation cannot assume post-judgment waiver remains fixed |
| Whether trial court could adjust alimony/other support based on later disability changes | Hurt: future disability may alter support obligations | Jones-Hurt: not at issue for this appeal; Howell forecloses on this specific division | Howell leaves post-judgment support adjustments to trial court; not decided here |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981) (federal preemption of state property division of military benefits)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (USFSPA vests state power to treat disposable pay as marital property; waivers cannot be counted as divisible)
- Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017) (supremacy of federal law over state division of military retirement benefits; after-divorce waivers trump state judgments)
- Allen v. Allen, 178 Md. App. 145 (2008) (military spouse cannot defeat agreed pension share by post-divorce waiver without consequence)
- Dexter v. Dexter, 105 Md. App. 678 (1995) (breach by waiver of military retirement benefits contrary to divorce agreement)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 223 Md. App. 599 (2015) (enforceability of assignable pension benefits post-divorce)
- Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253 (2010) (state courts enforce agreed division despite later waiver in some jurisdictions)
- Collins v. Collins, 144 Md. App. 395 (2002) (USFSPA framework and marital property under Maryland law)