Merrill v. Merrill

2 Citing cases

  1. Foster v. Foster

    505 Mich. 151 (Mich. 2020)   Cited 18 times
    Vacating in part and reversing in part Foster I and remanding the case for consideration of whether a consent divorce decree dividing the veteran at issue's disability benefits could be collaterally attacked on jurisdictional grounds

    The statute stated that in dividing property in a proceeding for the dissolution of a marriage, Arizona state courts could not:Merrill v. Merrill , 238 Ariz. 467, 468, 362 P.3d 1034 (2015), vacated 581 U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2156, 198 L.Ed.2d 228 (2017). 1. Consider any federal disability benefits awarded to a veteran for service-connected disabilities pursuant to 10 United States Code § 1413a or 38 United States Code chapter 11.

  2. Yourko v. Yourko

    74 Va. App. 80 (Va. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 8 times
    In Yourko, this Court thoroughly set out the complicated intersection of federal law— specifically the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act ("USFSPA")—and a state court's authority in the equitable distribution of military retirement benefits.

    Ordering a veteran to pay a former spouse the difference in benefits after a disability pay deduction, particularly a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement, would "displace the federal rule and stand as an obstacle to the ... purposes and objectives of Congress." Id.See also Foster v. Foster, 505 Mich. 151, 949 N.W.2d 102 (2020) (relying on Howell in concluding the trial court erred in requiring veteran to reimburse a former spouse for the reduction in benefits due to his receiving non-disposable special pay); Merrill v. Merrill, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2156, 2156, 198 L.Ed.2d 228 (2017) (vacating and remanding a judgment "in light of [Howell ]," which found that the family court could enter an indemnification order to compensate a former spouse for a reduction in her share of non-disposable elected benefits); Cassinelli v. Cassinelli, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 69, 69, 199 L.Ed.2d 2 (2017) (vacating and remanding a judgment "in light of [Howell ]," which found that a military spouse was required to reimburse a civilian spouse for electing to waive retirement pay and receive disability benefits, though reimbursement need not be directly from the disability benefits).