Petitioner's Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Whether a court can interpret a divorce decree in a manner that unconstitutionally divests separate property when the decree can reasonably be applied in a manner that preserves those marital property rights. 2. Whether the phrase “if, as, and when paid” is a term of art requiring that retirement benefits be valued at payment, rather than at the date of divorce, or merely a statement recognizing the contingent nature of retirement benefits. 3. Whether QDRO proceedings under Subchapter B of Family Code, Chapter 9 are subject to the prohibition on changing or altering the “substantive division of property” in a divorce decree when that prohibition appears in Subchapter A and not Subchapter B. 4. If QDRO proceedings are so restricted, whether issuing a QDRO that is more specific than a divorce decree amounts to an improper alteration of the “substantive division of property” in the decree under Texas Family Code § 9.007. xiii
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Divorce. Shanks and Treadway divorced on August 30, 1981 after nineteen years of marriage. CR 14; ARR 5. Shanks, an American Airlines (“American”) employee during the entire marriage, had participated in American’s retirement program since September 26, 1967. The program included both a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan. 1 ARR 5, 6-7, 15. When Shanks and Treadway divorced on August 31, 1981, Judge Dan Gibbs, divided the couple’s community property and designated certain separate property. CR 10-14. The court found that Shanks had “certain employee benefits under a pension plan arising out of past employment as an employee of American Airlines.” CR 12. The court awarded Treadway 25% of the “pension plan.” 2 The court also awarded her $55,000 of the $89,900 in cash the parties then owned. 3 CR 11-12. The decree divided the rest of the parties’ estate as follows: 1 Given the technical nature of retirement plan terms, Shanks provides this Court with a Glossary of Defined Terms. This brief consistently uses these defined terms even if the cases being discussed use different language. 2 During this appeal, the parties have disputed the value of the plans at the time of divorce. See Shanks’ Pet. at 1 (estimating $40,000 divorce value); Treadway’s Resp. at 3 (estimating $103,000 divorce value); Shank’s Reply Pet. at 1-2 & 1 n.1 (discussing dispute and concluding that both parties are wrong). ARR Pet. Ex. 3, 5. The exact dollar value of the plans in 1981 is not necessary to determine the methodology to divide the two plans in a way that preserves marital property rights and is faithful to the divorce decree. 3 The couple’s liquid assets during the divorce mainly consisted of $89,900 in cash from a $15,000 certificate of deposit and $74,400 held in escrow, proceeds from the sale of the couple’s house. CR 11-12. While Treadway was awarded only 25% of the community property in the retirement benefits, she received a disproportionate share of the couple’s liquid assets. 1
Page 1 and 2: No. 00-1325 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 3 and 4: AMENDED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COU
Page 5 and 6: III. 2. The court of appeals relied
Page 7 and 8: County of Maverick v. Texas Ass’n
Page 9 and 10: Reiss v. Reiss, No. 01-0251, 40 S.W
Page 11 and 12: VICTOR B. MEYEN & MARK W. DUNDEE, Q
Page 13: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Cour
Page 17 and 18: one for the defined benefit plan an
Page 19 and 20: ARGUMENT I. Given the proliferation
Page 21 and 22: earnings less applicable plan expen
Page 23 and 24: Thus, unlike defined contributions
Page 25 and 26: C. To accurately segregate communit
Page 27 and 28: Sequence Marital Property Defined C
Page 29 and 30: e paid to the alternate payee “if
Page 31 and 32: Moreover, such cursory divestiture
Page 33 and 34: of section 9.007 as the basis for i
Page 35 and 36: §§ 9.001-.002. Courts were also g
Page 37 and 38: intended to apply this restriction
Page 39 and 40: Whether the decree is unambiguous i
Page 41 and 42: entirely from non-divorce judgments
Page 43 and 44: [Treadway]. It is further ORDERED t
Page 45 and 46: (court recognizing that accrued ben
Page 47 and 48: Decrees that appear unambiguous whe
Page 49 and 50: This formula preserves marital prop
Page 51 and 52: D. When divorce precedes retirement
Page 53 and 54: In the Marriage, Employment, Divorc
Page 55 and 56: plan participant approaches retirem
Page 57 and 58: PRAYER This Court should grant Shan
Page 59: No. 00-1325 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?