In Re: The Marriage of: Guy L. Brown II v. Sarah Jarvis
16-0760
| W. Va. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Guy L. Brown II (petitioner) and Sarah Jarvis (respondent) divorced in February 2001; a QDRO entered February 28, 2001 awarded Jarvis a share of Brown’s West Virginia State Police pension.
- The 2001 QDRO calculated Jarvis’s share using the Board’s then-current rule (2000 method) that used total years of contributing service (including years after marriage) in the denominator.
- In 2005 the Retirement Board adopted a new, legislatively‑approved calculation (effective Sept. 1, 2005) that computes the marital portion using years of service through date of separation or divorce (excluding post-separation years).
- Brown retired in 2015 after 25 years’ service; the Board implemented the 2001 QDRO and began paying benefits to Jarvis in 2015.
- In January 2016 Brown moved to amend the 2001 QDRO to apply the 2005 calculation method retroactively; family court denied the motion as seeking retroactive application, the circuit court affirmed, and Brown appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2005 legislative rule for calculating former‑spouse pension shares applies retroactively to a valid 2001 QDRO | Brown: New (2005) method is more equitable and should be applied to reduce former spouse’s share | Jarvis: QDRO was valid and implemented in 2015; rule change should not retroactively alter an already‑approved QDRO | Held: No retroactive application; 2001 QDRO remains controlling because Board implemented it and Legislature did not clearly express retroactive intent |
| Whether family court had authority to amend the 2001 QDRO to conform to the 2005 rule | Brown: Family court can amend QDROs (Jones) to correct inequities | Jarvis: Jones permits amendment only to create a valid QDRO; here QDRO was valid and implemented, so no basis to amend | Held: Family court properly denied amendment because the 2001 order was a valid, implemented QDRO and Jones’s rationale (lack of valid QDRO) did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, 235 W. Va. 602, 775 S.E.2d 483 (2015) (family court may amend orders to create valid QDROs; Board determines whether order meets QDRO requirements)
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standard of review for family‑court orders reviewed by circuit court)
- Shanholtz v. Monongahela Power Co., 165 W. Va. 305, 270 S.E.2d 178 (1980) (statutes presumed prospective absent clear legislative intent to retroact)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t of W. Va., 195 W. Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995) (legislative rules authorized by statute are treated as statutory enactments)
- Chico Dairy Co. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 181 W. Va. 238, 382 S.E.2d 75 (1989) (legislative rules require legislative approval to be effective)