Howell v. Howell
Headline: Ruling prohibits states from forcing veterans to reimburse ex-spouses for retirement pay waived to obtain federal disability benefits, reversing Arizona and blocking state orders that restore those lost military payments.
Holding:
- Prevents state orders requiring veterans to reimburse ex-spouses for waived retirement pay.
- Family courts must consider possible VA waivers when valuing military retirement at divorce.
- Stops state restoration of retirement amounts waived for federal disability benefits.
Summary
Background
John and Sandra Howell divorced while John was in the Air Force. The divorce decree awarded Sandra half of John’s future military retirement pay and set monthly child and spousal support. Years later John waived part of his retirement pay to receive tax-free federal disability benefits, which reduced the checks Sandra got. An Arizona family court ordered John to reimburse Sandra for the lost amount, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that reimbursement order.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether a state may require a veteran to make up the portion of retirement pay the veteran waived to obtain federal disability benefits. It relied on federal law and earlier decisions that let States divide only “disposable retired pay” and that exclude amounts deducted because of a waiver for disability. The Court explained that Mansell and McCarty show federal law bars state awards that effectively give the waived portion to an ex-spouse, and that reimbursement orders are functionally the same as dividing the waived pay. The Arizona decision thus conflicted with federal law.
Real world impact
The decision prevents state courts from ordering veterans to indemnify ex-spouses for retirement pay waived to receive federal disability benefits. Veterans, their former spouses, and family courts nationwide must accept that some retirement pay cannot be restored by state order. Family judges can, however, take the possibility of future waivers into account when valuing assets or setting support at divorce.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas joined most of the opinion but disagreed with part of the Court’s preemption reasoning; Justice Gorsuch did not participate.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?