Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Marriage of Barron

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 21, 2019

In re the Marriage of Shelly Rae Barron, Petitioner/Appellee,
v.
v.

          Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore No. S1400DO201501132

         Opinion of the Court of Appeals Division One 796 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31 Filed July 31, 2018

          Mary K. Boyte Henderson (argued), Mary Katherine Boyte, P.C., Yuma, Attorney for Shelly Rae Barron.

          S. Alan Cook, S. Alan Cook, P.C., Phoenix; Keith Berkshire (argued), Kristi Reardon, Erica Gadberry, Berkshire Law Office, PLLC, Tempe; Richard G. Maxon, Tempe; Theodore C. Jarvi, Tempe, Attorneys for Paul Roger Barron.

          CHIEF JUSTICE BALES authored the opinion of the Court, in which VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL and JUSTICES TIMMER, BOLICK, GOULD, LOPEZ, and PELANDER (Retired) joined.

          OPINION

          BALES CHIEF JUSTICE.

         ¶1 In this divorce case, we hold that federal law does not permit a state court to order a military spouse to pay the equivalent of military retirement benefits to a former spouse if the military spouse continues to work past an eligible retirement date.

         I.

         ¶2 Paul Barron ("Husband") and Shelly Rae Barron ("Wife") married in 2004, when Husband was an active duty member of the United States Marine Corps. When they divorced in 2017, Husband was still an active duty service member. As part of the dissolution proceedings, the superior court found that Husband could retire in 2023 after twenty years of military service and divided the parties' assets, including Husband's military retirement pay ("MRP"), assuming Husband would apply for and collect retirement as soon as he became eligible.

         ¶3 The dissolution decree provided that Wife was entitled to 29% of the MRP. The trial judge also ordered Husband, if he chose to work beyond his retirement-eligibility date, to begin making payments to Wife equivalent to what she would have received as her share of the MRP had he retired.

         ¶4 On appeal, Husband argued that the court improperly ordered him to indemnify Wife if he chose to remain in the military on active duty status. Barron v. Barron, 796 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31, 35 ¶ 24 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018). The court of appeals agreed and reversed, reasoning that federal law precludes such indemnification. Id. at 37 ¶ 30.

         ¶5 We granted review because division of military retirement benefits is a recurring legal issue of statewide importance. We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution.

         II.

         ¶6 Military members may be eligible to retire and receive MRP after serving for a certain length of time, typically twenty years or more. See Howell v. Howell,137 S.Ct. 1400, 1402-03 (2017). Although some states had divided MRP upon divorce, in 1981 the United States Supreme Court held that such orders were preempted because they created a "conflict between the terms of the federal retirement ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.