Rhone v. McDonough

2 Citing cases

  1. Warner v. Scot. Cnty. Soc. Servs.

    1:22cv676 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Even if Section 511 did confer a private cause of action (and it does not), “garnishment of [child support] is a matter of state law provided by state courts, [and therefore] not a ‘decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary.'” Rhone v. McDonough, 53 F.4th 656, 664 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 511(a)).

  2. In re Landen

    No. 22-1705 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2024)

    Nor does the decree here-which merely requires Todd to pay Aprel the support awarded-require us to decide whether Aprel could reach Todd's disability benefits to enforce the award if he refused to pay. But see Rhone v. McDonough, 53 F.4th 656, 660 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that "the VA is statutorily authorized to withhold disability compensation for court-ordered alimony payments" and rejecting arguments similar to those made by Todd that 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1) or 42 U.S.C. § 659 protects veterans disability payments "if a veteran has waived a portion of his military retirement pay in order to receive disability compensation"); see also 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(V) (including payments "by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as compensation for a service-connected disability . . . to a former member of the Armed Forces who is in receipt of retired or retainer pay if the former member has waived a portion of the retired or retainer pay in order to receive such compensation" within the definition of "moneys" subject to enforcement under state law for "child support or alimony" obligations).