AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Jacqueline Johnson (Wife) and David Johnson (Husband) over the division of Wife's gross military retirement pay, which the district court determined to be Husband's community property at a rate of 46.5%. The New Mexico Human Services Department intervened in the case. The contention primarily revolves around the calculation of Husband’s share based on Wife’s gross disposable retired pay.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge: The district court adopted the conclusions and recommendations of a family court hearing officer, determining that 46.5% of Wife’s gross military retirement pay is Husband’s community property.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Wife): Argued that the district court erred in calculating Husband’s community share based on her gross disposable retired pay, suggesting that a different definition of “disposable earnings” should apply, specifically one that considers deductions unique to military retired pay for child support and/or alimony, and proposed limitations on the duration or percentage of Husband’s share.
• Respondent-Appellee (Husband): [Not applicable or not found]
• Intervenor (New Mexico Human Services Department): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in calculating Husband’s community share of Wife’s military retirement pay based on her gross disposable retired pay.
• Whether the definition of “disposable earnings” for the purpose of calculating military retired pay for child support and/or alimony should apply to the division of military retired pay as community property.
• Whether Husband’s community share in Wife’s retired pay should be subject to proposed limitations on duration or percentage.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order that 46.5% of Wife’s gross military retirement pay is Husband’s community property.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring): The Court found Wife’s arguments regarding the calculation of Husband’s share of her military retirement pay unpersuasive. The Court relied on the definition of “disposable retired pay” as outlined in the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Act (USFSPA), which does not support Wife’s proposed definition that includes deductions specific to child support and/or alimony (para 1). The Court also noted that the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation cited by Wife applies specifically to child support and alimony from military retired pay and not to the division of such pay as community property under state law (para 2). Furthermore, Wife’s reliance on 10 U.S.C. § 1435(2) was deemed misplaced, as it pertains to beneficiaries of an annuity under the armed forces, not the division of retired pay (para 3). The Court dismissed an email from the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) cited by Wife as it was not introduced into evidence below and thus could not be considered on appeal (para 4). Lastly, the Court found no legal basis for Wife’s proposed limitations on Husband’s share of her retired pay, either in duration or percentage, and thus remained unpersuaded by her arguments (para 5).