Search:

Custom Search

Who Said Divorce Would be Cheap (or Fair)?

By Susan Smith

Monday, September 24, 2007

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

A retired fed, unhappy with the Office of Personnel Management's decision to award his ex-wife 53% of his monthly retirement annuity, was unsuccessful in getting the Federal Circuit to overturn the decision. (Hasandaka v. Office of Personnel Management, C.A.F.C. No. 2007-3205 (nonprecedential), 9/13/07)

In a divorce proceeding, the Indiana court ordered that Hasandaka's ex-wife was entitled to 53% of her husband's gross civil service annuity, and directed OPM to pay her share directly to her. (Opinion p. 1) On review of the order, OPM decided it was valid and that it would comply. (p. 2)

Hasandaka was not happy with this development and appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. He argued that OPM regulations prohibited them from giving his ex-wife a greater share than he, as the annuitant, received, and that the court order should not be honored by OPM because it was not "clear and specific," as required by OPM regulations. (p. 2)

The Board rejected these arguments and upheld the OPM determination. Now, the appeals court upholds the Board and the OPM.

The court rejects the first argument since it is based on the "CSRS and FERS Handbook" issued by OPM. "That document, however, is just that: a ‘handbook' designed to guide personnel…It does not create any legally enforceable rights in annuitants or employees." (p. 3) The court goes on to state that "Nothing in the handbook states, or even suggests, that OPM cannot pay, pursuant to a divorce decree, a higher percentage of an annuitant's gross income to his former wife than it pays to him." (p. 3)

The only practical limit is the net annuity amount.

As to the second argument on the clarity of the state court's order, the court found it to be pretty straight forward and therefore enforceable by OPM.

© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • I married eight years ago for the white picket fences. Fell victim of a good but negligent husband, we both agreed things went south and cold. Separated for two years now under the same roof, I´ve had no steady income way before we married, now three children later and no retirement of my own, jus...
    Posted: April 16, 2008 5:22 PM
  • After a 10 year marriage, I filed for divorce. The decree gave her half my TSP, half the marital assets, and then promised her half of my retirement that was EARNED DURING THE MARRIAGE. This means that half of 10 is "5 years worth", so if I work for 35 years, she is only entitled to 5/35 or about ...
    Posted: March 13, 2008 4:36 PM
  • I have a similar situation. I separated in '96. Didn't get divorced until '03. (our separation was mutaully agreeable with no fighting of any sort) I don't remember the exact wording in the separation agreement about my retirement. Maybe it doesn't matter. Does my ex have to go to court to get p...
    Posted: March 13, 2008 7:05 AM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

Contact Susan Smith or read more articles on the author's page.