Landanarf v. Landanarf

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of the Marriage of Smedley

    653 P.2d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    Some other states that have considered the effect of McCarty and Hisquierdo on the distribution of property in the dissolution of a marriage have concluded that an award of property to offset a military retirement pension is not permissible. See Rice v. Rice, 103 Idaho 85, 645 P.2d 319 (1982); Pruitt v. Pruitt, 622 S.W.2d 767 (Mo App 1981); Landanarf v. Landanarf, 441 A.2d 641 (Del Fam Ct 1981); see also Grotelueschen v. Grotelueschen, 113 Mich. App. 395, 318 N.W.2d 227 (1982); Sadler v. Sadler, 428 N.E.2d 1305 (Ind.App. 1981); but see Gronquist v. Gronquist, 7 Kan. App. 2d 583, 644 P.2d 1365 (1982); Karr and Karr, 628 P.2d 267 (Mont 1981), cert den 455 U.S. 1016, 102 S Ct 384 (1982). Recognizing the potential inequities created by McCarty, Congress has taken a hand.

  2. Smith v. Smith

    458 A.2d 711 (Del. Fam. 1983)   Cited 35 times
    Finding Rule 60(b) relief appropriate to reopen proceedings and permit the respondent to produce additional evidence where a recently enacted statute effectively overruled decisional law governing the Delaware Family Court's prior decision not to treat the respondent's husband's military asset as a marital asset

    Prior to McCarty, the law of Delaware as enunciated by the Delaware Supreme Court in Robert C.S. v. Barbara J.S., Del.Supr., 434 A.2d 383 (1981) was that future pension rights were marital property subject to division in ancillary proceedings. The subsequent decision by this Court in Landanarf v. Landanarf, Del.Fam., 441 A.2d 641 (1981) and the November 30, 1981 decision in this case rested solely and exclusively on McCarty and, hence, since Congress has, in effect, rendered McCarty null and void by making the Act retroactive to the date of the McCarty decision, Landanarf should no longer be considered controlling Delaware law with respect to military pension and Robert C.S., supra, should now be considered the controlling law for all future military pensions. The issue presented by the instant motion as amended is whether the Court should now reopen a decision almost eighteen months old for the purpose of receiving additional evidence and/or arguments with respect to the military pension for the purpose of making an award to the Wife of a portion thereof.