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 Jeffrey Russ (Husband) and Angela Russ (Wife) over the division of Husband's military retirement pay following his conversion of the entirety of this pay to disability-based Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC), which resulted in Wife no longer receiving her agreed-upon share. The couple divorced in 2006 after a thirteen-year marriage, during which Husband served in the military. Their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), incorporated into the final divorce decree, stipulated that Wife was to receive 50% of Husband's disposable military retirement pay earned during their marriage. Husband began receiving retirement pay in 2011, but in 2014, converted all of it to CRSC, ceasing Wife's payments (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, January 4, 2016: Determined that whether Husband’s CRSC benefits, converted from Retirement Pay post-retirement, remain a community asset and are divisible would be resolved following a trial on the merits (para 4).
• District Court, November 21, 2016: Following a bench trial, found in favor of Wife, ordering Husband to pay her a portion of his Retirement Pay and arrears, despite his conversion to CRSC (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Husband: Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Howell v. Howell preempts New Mexico case law, prohibiting the district court from ordering him to reimburse Wife for waived Retirement Pay. He contends that Howell should be applied retroactively, barring Wife from receiving payments from his CRSC benefits, which he claims as his separate property (paras 5, 12).
• Wife: Contended that Howell does not abrogate the relevant New Mexico case law as it pertains to their MSA, which includes a release clause functioning as an indemnity provision. She argues against the retroactive application of Howell, emphasizing the unfair reduction of her share of community property originally agreed upon in the MSA (paras 6, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Howell v. Howell preempts New Mexico case law, prohibiting the district court from ordering Husband to reimburse Wife for waived Retirement Pay.
• Whether Howell should be applied retroactively in this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order requiring Husband to reimburse Wife for waived Retirement Pay and to continue payments, but on grounds different than those relied on by the district court (para 21).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Hanisee, concurred by Judges Bogardus and Ives, found that while the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Howell v. Howell does preempt New Mexico case law to the extent that it prohibits orders compensating a spouse for waived military retirement pay, the district court's decision could still be affirmed on different grounds. Specifically, the court concluded that Howell does not apply retroactively in New Mexico, based on the analysis of factors from Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. and similar New Mexico precedents. The court reasoned that Howell established a new principle of law by abrogating established New Mexico precedent, that the congressional purposes of Retirement Pay would not be substantially harmed by non-retroactive application, and that retroactive application could produce inequitable results for ex-spouses relying on military retirement pay as determined in marital settlement agreements (paras 7-20).