Johnson v. Johnson, 386 P.3d 1049

Married in Washington in 1993; one child (born 2006). Parties moved frequently due to Husband’s military service. Wife filed for divorce in Comanche County, Oklahoma in June 2011.
Husband was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma by military assignment for about 2.5 years and maintained Washington as his claimed domicile; he moved to Oklahoma only after separation.
Husband filed a special appearance and timely objected to the court’s authority to divide his military retirement, arguing 10 U.S.C. §1408 limits state courts’ power unless domicile, non-military residence, or consent exist.
The trial court granted the divorce and divided marital property, awarding Wife 50% of Husband’s retirement accrued during the marriage; it justified jurisdiction over the pension based on Husband’s alleged Oklahoma domicile and because Husband had previously filed two actions in the county.
On appeal the court vacated only the portion of the decree dividing Husband’s military retirement for lack of jurisdiction under §1408(c)(4); it affirmed the remainder of the decree (child-care allocation and alimony-in-lieu award).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wife)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held
Whether Oklahoma court could divide Husband’s military retirement under 10 U.S.C. §1408	Wife relied on trial-court finding of Husband’s domicile in Oklahoma and prior filings as basis for jurisdiction to divide the pension	Husband argued he was domiciled in Washington, in Oklahoma only by military assignment, and he never consented to jurisdiction over his retirement; §1408 limits state authority	Vacated pension division: court lacked jurisdiction under §1408(c)(4) because Husband was not domiciled in Oklahoma, did not consent as to retirement, and prior voided filings did not establish consent
Whether Husband must share day-care expenses	Wife: day-care reasonably necessary to enable her to attend school/training; share required under 43 O.S. §118G	Husband: should not be required to share day-care costs	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; day-care expenses reasonably necessary and allocation proper
Whether trial court miscalculated/no offset for Allianz mutual fund in alimony-in-lieu computation	Husband: trial court should have valued account at $18,553.33 and offset $8,973 paid to Wife, reducing his alimony obligation	Wife: trial court accepted evidence Husband paid sums to Wife and fixed remaining value at $9,580.33; division was equitable	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; overall property division equitable despite arithmetic argument

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (federal preemption and Supremacy Clause principles)
Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (interpretation of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and limits on state authority over military retirement)
Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112 (Pa. 2001) (consent under §1408(c)(4)(C) must relate specifically to jurisdiction to divide retirement pay)
Matter of Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734 (Colo. 1992) (Act preempts state long-arm rules regarding pension jurisdiction)
Davis v. Davis, 284 P.3d 23 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012) (discussion of implied consent and when general appearance yields jurisdiction over retirement pay)
Hayes v. Hayes, 164 P.3d 1128 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (defines disposable retired pay under the Act)
Colclasure v. Colclasure, 295 P.3d 1123 (Okla. 2012) (standard for equitable property division in divorce)