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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ...........................................................ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................v STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................................................... xi STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................xii ISSUES PRESENTED................................................................................................................xiii STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT............................................................................................. 4 ARGUMENT 5 I. Given the proliferation of post-divorce proceedings, parties and courts should understand that retirement benefits fall into two general categories with vastly different traits......................................................... 5 A. The advent of QDROs increases post-divorce proceedings............................................................................................................ 5 B. Defined contribution and defined benefit plans are fundamentally different......................................................................................... 6 1. Defined contribution plans ....................................................................... 6 2. Defined benefit plans ................................................................................ 8 3. The “plan” in this case ............................................................................10 C. To accurately segregate community interests courts should note which factual situation the divorce presents as each requires a different analysis to preserve marital property rights.....................................................................................................11 II. Given constitutional and statutory restrictions, divorce decrees should be interpreted differently than other judgments.................................................... 14 A. Divorce decrees must be interpreted within the context of Texas’ community property laws have always banned division of separate property upon divorce.......................................................14 B. The perceived tension between Berry and Baxter can be reconciled. ...........................................................................................................17 C. Divorce decrees, unlike other final judgments, are subject to a variety of review mechanisms........................................................20 D. Application of the divorce decree by entering more detailed QDROs is not a “substantive division” under section 9.007(a)..................................................................................................22 E. The decree in this case awarded Treadway 25% of the community property in the retirement plans, or 25% of the plans valued at divorce..................................................................................25 1. Divorce decree judgments must be interpreted with an eye toward constitutional marital property rights.........................................................................................25 iii
III. 2. The court of appeals relied on cases construing contracts in interpreting the divorce decree.........................................26 3. The decree here is ambiguous and must be read in the context of constitutional property rights........................................27 4. The court of appeals erred in construing “if, as, and when paid” as a term of art meaning valuation at payment rather than a term recognizing the contingent nature of retirement benefits...............................................30 5. The courts of appeals, caught in the tension between finalizing divorces and accurately dividing retirement plans, commit several errors.................................32 This Court should grant this petition and untangle the complicated interaction between marital property rights and benefit plan requirements...............................................................................................33 A. Apportionment and valuation errors in the lower courts and the ongoing confusion in applying Berry must be remedied...............................................................................................................34 B. Community property share of defined contribution plans can be valued to an accurate dollar amount at divorce.....................................34 C. When retirement precedes divorce, division of both defined contribution and defined benefits plans is relatively simple..................................................................................................36 D. When divorce precedes retirement, divorce decrees must necessarily be applied to future facts via a QDRO or other Chapter 9 post-divorce proceeding.....................................................37 1. Valuation must respect separate property rights..................................37 2. Post-divorce increases............................................................................40 3. The problem of Taggert as an estimate.................................................41 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................43 PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................44 iv
Page 1 and 2: No. 00-1325 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 3: AMENDED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COU
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 and 14: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Cour
Page 15 and 16: STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Divorce.
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
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?