In RE the Marriage of Kathryn June Morris and Dennis Eugene Morris Upon the Petition of Kathryn June Morris, 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 13

Married 1980–2003; 23-year marriage with three daughters; during marriage Dennis paid Marine Corps retirement benefits; SBP was foregone in favor of a $350,000 life insurance policy naming Kathy as beneficiary
2003 Stipulation and Agreement divided property, alimony, and pensions, stating Kathy to receive half of Dennis’s Marine Corps Retirement
Decree adopted the stipulation, permitting Kathy to receive half of the retirement during Dennis’s life; survivorship rights not expressly resolved
Dennis could designate a survivor under SBP at age 60, potentially reducing Kathy’s life-long benefits and possibly benefiting a current spouse
In 2010 Kathy sought a hearing to compel survivorship designation; district court denied; court of appeals affirmed; this Court reverses and remands to interpret the 2003 decree’s intent regarding survivorship
The Court holds that the issue is one of interpretation of the decree, not modification, and remands for the district court to determine the court’s intent regarding survivorship rights

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether survivorship rights were included in the decree’s award	Morris contends the decree's half-retirement includes SBP survivorship	Morris argues the decree only divides monthly payments during life, not survivorship	Ambiguity in the decree; remanded to determine the court’s intent on survivorship
Whether the district court properly treated the request as modification or interpretation	Kathy seeks enforcement of the decree’s intended survivorship, not modification	Dennis argues it is a modification of property division	Court to interpret the decree, not modify it; remand to determine the court’s 2003 intent

In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 2009) (de novo review of whether dissolution decree interpretation correct; enforcement aid via QDRO)
Bowman v. Bennett, 250 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa 1977) (decree controls; court interprets not parties’ private intent)
In re Marriage of Jones, 653 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 2002) (stipulation is a contract but court determines legally approved disposition)
Sieren v. Bauman, 436 N.W.2d 43 (Iowa 1989) (judicial modification vs. interpretation concern when challenging decree)
Prochelo v. Prochelo, 346 N.W.2d 527 (Iowa 1984) (private intentions not binding without decree interpretation)
Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767 (Md. 1989) (enforcement of judgments; relevance to treating stipulation as aid to enforcement)