Osborne v. Osborne
2011 UT App 150
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Osborne and Negha were divorced; the Arkansas Decree provided alimony and future division of Railroad Retirement benefits.
- In Jan 2009, Osborne retired early due to disability; in May 2009, Negha moved to Utah to domesticate the Arkansas Decree and seek alimony arrears.
- On Oct 14, 2009, Utah district court entered a qualified domestic relations order dividing railroad benefits and awarding alimony arrears (the October 2009 Order).
- Osborne argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Arkansas transfer occurred in November 2009, after the Utah orders; the court disagreed, noting domestication.
- The district court domesticated the Arkansas Decree under the Utah Foreign Judgment Act, treating it as a Utah judgment and enforcing, not modifying, it; it also interpreted the Decree to allocate Tier II benefits to Negha.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce/divest | Osborne asserts no Utah jurisdiction until transfer occurred. | Osborne's challenge fails; domestication gave Utah court jurisdiction to enforce the Decree. | Court affirmed; district court correctly enforced/domesticated the Decree. |
| Tier II vs Tier I benefits as divisible | Tier II benefits are not divisible; they are not a marital asset. | Tier II benefits are divisible and can be allocated by a divorce decree. | Tier II benefits are divisible; the Decree could allocate them. |
| Interpretation of Decree language about retirement benefits | Language refers only to the indivisible Tier I divorced-spouse benefit. | Language contemplates Tier II benefits to replace alimony upon retirement. | District court did not abuse its discretion; language supports Tier II interpretation. |
| Alimony arrears judgment correctness | Arrears were not owed during waiting period before retirement distributions. | Arrears were owed until Negha began receiving retirement distributions. | Arrears judgment upheld; arrears owed until retirement distributions began. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Attorney fees on appeal denied; pro se litigants not entitled to fees; trial fees awarded to Negha. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. Moon, 973 P.2d 431 (Utah 1999) (contract interpretation of decree; use of language to ascertain intent)
- Bankler v. Bankler, 963 P.2d 797 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (foreign judgment enforcement; cannot modify; same procedures as Utah judgment)
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (Supreme Court 1979) (two-tier railroad benefits framework; Tier I vs Tier II concepts)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 169 P.3d 765 (Utah Ct.App.2007) (comparison of social security to railroad act benefits; treatment of benefits at divorce)
- Zappanti, 80 P.3d 889 (Colo.App.2003) (distinguishing nondivisible Tier I from divisible Tier II benefits in divorce)
- Land v. Land, 605 P.2d 1248 (Utah 1980) (contract interpretation and extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists)
- Bodell Constr. Co. v. Robbins, 2009 UT 52 (Utah 2009) (eschewing extrinsic evidence absent ambiguity; interpretive standards)