Florida Military Divorce: AFSA Chapter Stance on Remarriage
Florida military divorce discussions are taking a look at the issue of support vs property. We addressed this in our Mississippi military divorce discussion. The core foundation of many opinions expressed concerning the division of retired pay are a result of whether one views the division of retired pay as alimony support or a division of property.
On October 19, 2012, Chapter 554 of the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), Eglin AFB, Florida commented on the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) in their newsletter.
“One of the chief complaints with USFSPA is that garnishment of military retirement pay does not terminate if the former spouse remarries. It is clearly inequitable for military members and they are the only US citizens who have a separate divorce law which specifically targets them. AFSA’s position on the USFSPA remains unchanged; we support its repeal and continue to address this injustice with members of Congress.” See source
The AFSA position views the military retired pay division as a form of support, similar to alimony.
The USFSPA is used for Division of Property
Property Division Continues – Even After Remarriage
By using the USFSPA Federal law to divide the military retirement pay, states are automatically declaring the division as a property division.
The Federal USFSPA states:
“A court may treat disposable retired pay payable to a member for pay periods beginning after June 25, 1981, either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his [or her] spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court.”
Federal law does not state: “…may treat … as alimony….”
We can find many states decrees awarding both the division of pay and alimony. This is also the recommendation in Military Divorce Tips (to have separate written declarations in military divorce decrees: one for alimony and one for the division of retirement pay.)
When we view the retirement pay division as property, the proposals and discussions suggesting it should cease upon remarriage lose their credibility.
No other marital asset division ceases upon remarriage.
We don’t say, “You are awarded the house — but only until you remarry, or you are awarded this division of stock — but only until you remarry.”
Perhaps if we increase everyone’s understanding of property vs support, some of the ill feelings and differing opinions would fade away.
You might also read:
Share More about Florida Divorce
Share New Information on Florida:
You can submit more information about Military Divorce in Florida by completing our submission form beneath the clickable map on the State Military Divorce Laws page.
Keep up to date:
Federal law does not state: “…may treat … as alimony….”
Federal law D-O-E-S state: “military retired pay is CURRENT INCOME” for only the retiree. Therefore any division of mrp must be ONLY treated as ALIMONY ! Just because a law has been enacted does NOT mean it’s “right” ! Many “laws” have been judged to be “wrong” and taken off the books ! The 97th Congress made a BIG mistake when they covertly passed the USFSPA ! The USFSPA FRAUD will be REPEALED ! ! !
Federal law does say DFAS is required to enforce court ordered alimony and child support awards, in 10 USC 1408(d)(1)
Is your point about MRP can be treated as alimony and child support? I don’t believe that is the issue.
I thought the the main issue is terminating payments to a remarried former spouse. Most state retirement plans and other Federal plans terminate to a remarried former spouse except for the military member because of court interpetations.
First and foremost MRP is not a pension or has any charectoristics of property.There is no fund set aside that accrues nor can it desend to an heir like property does.
Futhermore CIA,FSA,Federal Rairoad,some state employees pension payments terminate if an ex spouse remarries.
So for arguments sake, even if MRP was a property asset, why does it not terminate to a remarried spouse like other Federal or state retirement plans? Dosen’t make sense.