Smith v. McINTOSH
70 So. 3d 1277
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- After a 31-year marriage, Smith and McIntosh divorced in 2001; the divorce judgment incorporated an agreement where the wife waived any right to retirement and the husband agreed to maintain the SBP for the wife and to name her irrevocable beneficiary on the life-insurance policy, as in lieu of alimony.
- The wife remarried Jimmy Hataway in 2001; the husband then ceased SBP premiums and, reportedly, life-insurance premiums as well due to cancer and rising costs.
- By 2007, DFAS reinstated the wife as SBP beneficiary after learning of the remarriage and the wife paid arrearages; the husband remarried in March 2008 and removed the wife as SBP beneficiary.
- The wife filed a contempt complaint in 2009 seeking to reinstate her SBP and life-insurance beneficiary status; two ore tenus hearings were held in 2010.
- The trial court held the life-insurance obligation resembled alimony and was modifiable; it later ruled that remarriage terminated the SBP and life-insurance obligations under Alabama law, and the wife appealed.
- The Alabama Supreme Court held federal SBP preempts conflicting state law; the trial court’s termination based on remarriage was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal SBP preempts Alabama law on former spouse entitlement | Smith argues federal law preempts state law to reinstate SBP benefits after remarriage. | McIntosh contends Alabama law governs termination based on remarriage and is not preempted. | SBP preempts conflicting state law; reversed as to denial of SBP benefits upon remarriage. |
| Whether remarriage terminates SBP and life-insurance obligations | Remarriage does not automatically terminate SBP/life-insurance benefits due to federal preemption. | Remarriage under Alabama law ends alimony-like obligations; husband’s duties terminate. | Remarriage does not terminate SBP benefits under federal law; preemption requires reinstatement guidance. |
| Whether the SBP obligation was an alimony award subject to modification | Obligation was an SBP provision, not alimony, and thus not subject to modification under Alabama alimony rules. | The provision functioned as periodic alimony and could be modified. | Court did not accept alimony characterization; preemption controls, reversing that portion. |
| Whether 10 U.S.C. § 1450 preempts state-law denial of SBP benefits | § 1450 allows reinstatement and continuation of SBP benefits for former spouses under certain conditions. | State law governs final deployment absent conflict. | Federal § 1450 preempts inconsistent state law; remand for proceedings consistent with federal law. |
| Whether wife is entitled to reinstatement of SBP and life-insurance beneficiary status | Wife seeks reinstatement under federal SBP provisions. | Husband may challenge entitlement post-remarriage; AL law limits. | Remand to determine proper beneficiaries under federal law; no final determination on entitlement in this ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981) (federal supremacy over state-determined marital rights)
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979) (preemption in domestic relations requires direct enactment)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (domestic relations preemption where Congress intends exclusive regulation)
- Wetmore v. Markoe, 190 U.S. 68 (1904) (Supremacy Clause limitations on state law in family matters)
- Dugan v. Childers, 261 Va. 3 (2001) (SBP preemption by federal law; reinstatement theories)
- Silva v. Silva, 333 S.C. 387 (1998) (federal SBP provisions preempt state law in similar scenarios)
- Barros v. Barros, 660 P.2d 770 (1983) (state-law distribution of SBP benefits limited by federal framework)