478 P.3d 1132
Wash. Ct. App.2020Background
- In a 2006 dissolution decree the court (incorporating a mediated agreement) ordered Michael Tupper to pay Donna (Hagar) 50% of his Social Security benefits (including disability) once he began receiving them; the decree did not characterize or value the award.
- Tupper retired and began receiving Social Security in 2016; Hagar received no payments and filed an enforcement motion in 2018.
- A superior court commissioner ordered compliance; a superior court judge denied revision and Tupper appealed.
- Tupper argued the award violated 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (anti-assignment/anti-attachment of Social Security) and was preempted by federal law; Hagar advanced defenses including laches, equitable estoppel, and waiver and argued the award was maintenance or otherwise enforceable.
- The Court of Appeals held the provision dividing Social Security benefits violated federal law, was preempted, and that the judgment was void as to that provision; it reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the entire property division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hagar) | Defendant's Argument (Tupper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a decree may divide a spouse's Social Security benefits | The decree did not effect a direct transfer or valuation; award intended as post-retirement maintenance or simply reflected the parties' bargain | Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 407(a)) bars assignment or legal process to reach Social Security; benefits are indivisible and state courts are preempted | Division of Social Security benefits violated § 407(a) and is preempted; benefits are not divisible |
| Whether the judgment is void for lack of power/authority to divide benefits | Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over dissolution; parties consented so judgment should be voidable, not void | The court lacked power to enter an order transferring Social Security benefits; that defect renders the portion of the judgment void | The portion of the decree dividing Social Security benefits is void because the court lacked authority to order such a transfer |
| Applicability of equitable defenses (laches, equitable estoppel, waiver) | Hagar: Tupper’s delay and conduct should bar his challenge; she relied on the award and would be prejudiced | Tupper: equitable defenses fail because federal prohibition cannot be waived and Hagar cannot prove the required elements | Laches, estoppel, and waiver rejected—Hagar failed to prove prejudice, justifiable reliance, or intentional relinquishment |
| Remedy and fees: striking the provision vs. remand; award of appellate attorney fees | Hagar sought enforcement and fees; argues remand could be unfair but enforcement protects her bargain | Tupper sought reversal or striking of the unenforceable award | Court reversed the enforcement order and remanded to reconsider the entire property division; denied Hagar’s request for appellate attorney fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1979) (federal supremacy preempts state community-property division of certain federal retirement benefits)
- In re Marriage of Zahm, 138 Wn.2d 213 (Wash. 1999) (Social Security benefits are federal, indivisible, and may be considered but not divided in property distribution)
- In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (reinforcing Zahm: courts may account for, but not value or divide, Social Security benefits)
- Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (U.S. 2017) (federal law can preclude state orders that displace federal retirement/disability regimes)
- Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1973) (broad bar on use of legal process to reach Social Security benefits)
- Boulter v. Boulter, 930 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1997) (state court lacked power to enforce divorce decree provision dividing future Social Security payments)
- In re Marriage of Hulstrom, 794 N.E.2d 980 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (remanded because original property division that divided Social Security was void; court must reassess property division)
- In re Marriage of Anderson, 252 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2010) (same: provision dividing Social Security void and case remanded to revisit property division)