Johnson v. Johnson
2014 UT 21
| Utah | 2014Background
- Mark and Elizabeth (Zoric) Johnson married 1974, divorced 1984; during the marriage Mark accrued 10 years of military service toward a pension that vests at 20 years. The 1984 decree awarded Elizabeth “1/2 of 10 years” of Mark’s military retirement (a marital fraction), without specifying a pay grade or dollar amount.
- Elizabeth attempted to enforce the decree with DFAS in 1998 but DFAS rejected the submission for lack of specificity. She made no further enforcement efforts until filing for a QDRO/clarifying order in October 2008.
- Mark retired in 1999 after 24 years and received a higher pay grade (E-7) than during the marriage (E-5); his pension was reduced by a subsequent disability award.
- The district court (2008) awarded Elizabeth ongoing payments based on Mark’s actual retirement benefit but applied laches to bar recovery of benefits paid before her 2008 filing. The court of appeals affirmed ongoing payments and remanded on tax deductions.
- On certiorari the Utah Supreme Court (1) held the statute of limitations does not bar Elizabeth’s right to future pension installments, (2) declined to consider Mark’s laches argument because it was inadequately briefed on appeal, and (3) reversed the court of appeals/district court on the method used to calculate Elizabeth’s share, remanding for further fact-finding and a context-specific equitable determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Zoric) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations bars claim to pension installments | The entire claim is time-barred because Elizabeth waited decades and did not secure payment until 2008 | Each pension payment is a discrete event with its own limitations period; decree created a vested right to a marital fraction payable on retirement | Statute of limitations does not bar ongoing future payments; each installment has its own limitations period |
| Whether appellate court should consider laches defense | Laches should bar or reduce Elizabeth’s recovery for delay and prejudice to Mark | Laches was not properly briefed by Johnson on appeal | Court declined to address laches because Johnson inadequately briefed the issue on appeal |
| Proper method to value the pension share (marital portion) | Bright-line: use pay grade/salary at time of divorce (post-divorce increases are separate property) | Marital-foundation or alternative approaches allow sharing of post-divorce enhancements depending on context | Trial court abused discretion by rigidly applying marital-foundation to award Elizabeth a share of Mark’s actual retired benefit; remand for context-specific equitable fact-finding |
| Standard of review for district court’s pension-valuation decision | Should be correctness or at least reversal here | District court exercises broad equitable discretion; abuse of discretion standard applies | Abuse of discretion applies, but district court misapplied law by treating itself as bound to marital-foundation; reversal and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Seeley v. Park, 532 P.2d 684 (Utah 1975) (installment obligations for alimony/support become final when due; statute of limitations runs on each installment)
- Woodward v. Woodward, 656 P.2d 431 (Utah 1982) (adopts the time-rule formula for computing marital fraction of pension benefits)
- In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525 (Colo. 1995) (discusses marital-foundation approach and rationale for sharing post-dissolution pension enhancements)
- Koelsch v. Koelsch, 713 P.2d 1234 (Ariz. 1986) (pension as deferred compensation; portion earned during marriage is marital/community property)
- Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2013) (marital property presumptively valued at time of divorce absent compelling circumstances)