432 S.W.3d 789
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Deborah Roberts (Wife) and Michael Roberts (Husband) divorced by decree and incorporated separation agreement in 1990; Husband was a federal employee covered by the Civil Service Retirement System.
- At dissolution, all pension service accrued to date (1976–1990) was marital property; Husband continued working and accrued additional pension after 1990.
- Separation agreement awarded Wife “50% of the Husband’s Civil Service Retirement System annuity” but also declared exhibits to cover marital property and disclaimed claims to nonmarital property.
- When Husband retired in 2013, OPM interpreted the decree as requiring splitting half of his entire pension (including post‑divorce accrual).
- Husband sought a COAP/QDRO limiting Wife to one‑half of only the marital portion (pro rata portion earned during marriage); the trial court entered that COAP.
- Wife moved to set aside; trial court denied and Wife appealed. The court below affirmed the COAP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution decree awarded Wife one‑half of Husband’s entire pension (including post‑dissolution accrual) | Wife: decree language awards 50% of Husband’s annuity on retirement — i.e., half of total benefits at retirement | Husband: decree and exhibits limit the award to marital portion accrued during marriage; nonmarital post‑divorce accrual excluded | Court: Affirmed — decree, read as whole, awards only one‑half of the marital portion (pension service through 3/20/1990) |
| Whether the COAP’s marital‑portion formula should be modified as Husband requested on appeal | Husband sought modification of the COAP formula he proposed | Wife opposed | Court: Denied — Husband invited the error by proposing the COAP and did not cross‑appeal, so he cannot seek modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuba v. Kuba, 400 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D.) (QDRO interpretation reviewed de novo and COAP is a QDRO)
- Rich v. Rich, 871 S.W.2d 618 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D.) (only retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital property)
- Franken v. Franken, 191 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D.) (parties may contractually divide nonmarital property via separation agreement if not unconscionable)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 340 S.W.3d 673 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D.) (pension accruals are ratable over working life; marital portion determined by time worked during marriage)
- Miles v. Miles, 43 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D.) (distinguishable: decree there awarded one‑half of total vested interest as of retirement)