In Re the Marriage of Bushnell, 328 P.3d 608

Dan and Rachel Bushnell married in Oct. 2000 and dissolved in 2009; they entered a Parenting Plan and a Dissolution Settlement Agreement.
The Agreement obligated Rachel to receive 50% of Dan’s Army National Guard retirement earned during the marriage and stated each party would retain ownership of life insurance on their own life.
The Agreement contemplated a separate order to effectuate the retirement portion and limited obligations to those earned during the marriage; it contained a mutual release barring additional claims.
Rachel sought enforcement arguing Dan’s Survivorship Benefit Plan (SBP) should name her as beneficiary; Dan argued the SBP was not covered by the Agreement and had not been elected or purchased.
The district court ordered Dan to designate Rachel as the SBP spouse beneficiary, entering an obligation to reimburse Dan for premium payments, which the Montana Supreme Court later reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in naming Rachel as SBP beneficiary	Bushnell: SBP not addressed in Agreement; beneficiary designation not vested yet and cannot be extended post‑dissolution.	Bushnell: Court may enforce SBP designation to former spouse under federal authority where appropriate.	District court erred; term of Agreement controlled and precluded SBP designation to Rachel.

In re Caras, 364 Mont. 32 (2012 MT 25) (contractual division of assets; standard of review)
Cole v. Valley Ice Garden, L.L.C., 113 P.3d 275 (2005 MT 115) (contract interpretation; correctness review)
Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Coops., Inc., 338 Mont. 41 (2007 MT 159) (interpretation of contracts; rule of law)
Ophus v. Fritz, 11 P.3d 1192 (2000 MT 251) (contract interpretation; marital dissolution context)
Briese v. Mont. Pub. Empl. Ret. Bd., 366 Mont. 148 (2012 MT 192) (SBP/retirement benefits; life-insurance‑like treatment)
In re Morris, 810 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 2012) (survivor benefits within retirement assets)
Harvey v. Harvey, 905 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (survivor benefits and division of retirement)
Palmer v. Palmer, 142 P.3d 971 (N.M. App. 2006) (retirement proceeds division; pay-as-you-go language)
In re Payne, 897 P.2d 889 (Colo. App. 1995) (military benefits acquired during marriage)
Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1998) (survivor benefits tied to retirement benefits)
In re Bowman, 734 P.2d 197 (Mont. 1986) (survivor benefits and marital estate investment)
Williams v. Williams, 37 So. 3d 1171 (Miss. 2010) (separate order and survivor benefits context)