Nesbitt v. Nesbitt
2016 Ark. App. 487
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- William and Renee Nesbitt divorced June 2, 2014 after ~19 years of marriage; the divorce incorporated a property-settlement agreement.
- Paragraph 14 awarded Renee 32% of William’s disposable military retirement pay (as a property division, not alimony), effective March 1, 2014.
- Postdivorce William elected Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC), converting most retirement pay to tax-free disability pay and sharply reducing the reported “retirement pay” on which Renee’s 32% share was calculated.
- Renee moved for contempt and enforcement, seeking payment as if William had continued receiving the pre-divorce retirement amount (including COLAs); trial court found her interest vested and ordered William to pay the 32% of the retirement amount he was receiving at divorce plus future COLAs, awarded a small lump sum for past shortfalls, and required monthly statements.
- Trial court declined to hold William in contempt but ordered payment and awarded partial attorney’s fees and costs to Renee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Renee) | Defendant's Argument (William) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether William can unilaterally reduce Renee’s 32% share by electing CRSC | Renee: Her 32% was a vested property right as of the decree; William cannot unilaterally diminish it by converting retirement pay to disability pay | William: Agreement pays 32% of whatever retirement pay exists; his CRSC election merely changed the character of benefits but preserved the 32% formula (she still receives 32% of retirement pay) | Court: Renee’s share vested at divorce; William could not unilaterally diminish it; he must pay the 32% based on the retirement amount at time of divorce and future COLAs (not the reduced post‑election figure) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Renee | Renee: Fees reasonably incurred to enforce the vested property right; requested fees and costs supported by billing | William: Billing was block‑billed and too generalized to support the award; award should be struck or reduced | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; domestic-relations courts have latitude and need not require exhaustive billing detail; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Surratt v. Surratt, 85 Ark. App. 267 (2004) (nonmilitary spouse obtains a vested property interest in portion of military retirement pay that cannot be unilaterally diminished by spouse’s waiver for disability benefits)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (USFSPA excludes from state division retired pay that has been waived to receive veterans’ disability benefits)
- Tiner v. Tiner, 422 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. App. 2012) (trial court has discretion to award attorney’s fees in domestic‑relations matters and need not require exhaustive billing documentation)