Affirmation of Military Retired Pay as Divisible Property and Income for Child Support in Divorce Cases

Affirmation of Military Retired Pay as Divisible Property and Income for Child Support in Divorce Cases

Introduction

In In Re The Marriage of Pam Anita Cook v. Roger Paul Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166 (1997), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed pivotal issues arising from the divorce of Pam Anita Cook and Roger Paul Cook. Central to the case were the equitable division of military retired pay and its subsequent inclusion as income for child support calculations. The husband contested the circuit court's decision to allocate a portion of his military retired pay to his ex-wife as property while simultaneously considering it as income for child support obligations. This commentary delves into the court's rationale, the legal precedents it relied upon, and the broader implications of its ruling on Wisconsin family law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the circuit court's order in the divorce proceeding between Pam Anita Cook and Roger Paul Cook. The circuit court had equitably divided the husband's military retired pay, awarding 11/23 of it to the ex-wife and retaining 12/23 for himself. Additionally, the court included the husband's retained military retired pay as part of his gross income when calculating his child support obligations. The husband challenged both the division of the military retired pay and its inclusion as income, arguing that this amounted to impermissible "double-counting." The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, reaffirming that military retired pay qualifies as divisible property and can simultaneously be considered income for child support purposes.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court's decision was significantly influenced by several key precedents:

  • McCARTY v. McCARTY: Established that federal law initially precluded states from dividing military retired pay as marital property, a stance reversed by the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act.
  • Steinke v. Steinke: Affirmed that pension rights, akin to military retired pay, are considered marital assets subject to division.
  • KRONFORST v. KRONFORST: Introduced the "double-counting" rule, cautioning against treating the same asset as both property division and as income for support calculations.
  • Olski v. Olski, Hommel v. Hommel, and others: Provided varied interpretations of the "double-counting" principle, highlighting the need for flexibility based on case specifics.

Additionally, scholarly work by Professor Grace Ganz Blumberg was referenced to underscore the prevalent acceptance of treating military retired pay as property subject to division across jurisdictions.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future divorce proceedings involving military personnel. By affirming that military retired pay can be both divided as property and included as income for child support, the court ensures a balanced approach that considers both equitable asset distribution and the financial well-being of children. This dual treatment prevents scenarios where assets are unfairly tilted in one aspect, promoting overall fairness in divorce settlements.

Furthermore, the decision clarifies the application of the "double-counting" rule in the context of child support, steering future courts towards a nuanced, case-by-case analysis rather than adhering to a rigid, absolute prohibition.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Double-Counting in Divorce Proceedings

"Double-counting" refers to the concern that the same financial asset might be treated both as part of the marital property being divided and as income when determining support obligations. In this case, the husband's military retired pay was divided as property and also considered as income for child support, leading to the allegation of double-counting. The Supreme Court clarified that these are distinct processes serving different purposes—asset distribution and child welfare—and thus, addressing both does not constitute improper double-counting.

Military Retired Pay as Property and Income

Military retired pay is a regular income stream earned from past military service, similar to private pension plans. As marital property, it can be divided between spouses during a divorce. Simultaneously, it can be treated as income for child support calculations to ensure that the financial needs of the children are met, reflecting the responsible allocation of resources post-divorce.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin's decision in In Re The Marriage of Pam Anita Cook v. Roger Paul Cook underscores the court's commitment to equitable treatment of marital assets and the financial interests of children in divorce proceedings. By affirming that military retired pay can serve dual roles—as divisible property and as income for child support—the court ensures a comprehensive approach to asset distribution and child welfare. This judgment not only clarifies the application of existing laws but also reinforces the importance of flexibility and fairness in judicial determinations, adapting legal principles to serve the nuanced realities of divorce cases.

Case Reference: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: PAM ANITA COOK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. ROGER PAUL COOK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER. (208 Wis. 2d 166)
Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Date: March 19, 1997

Case Details

Year: 1997
Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Judge(s)

Shirley S. Abrahamson

Attorney(S)

For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Michael J. Briggs and Briggs Law Office, Madison and oral argument by Norma Briggs. For the petitioner-respondent there was a brief by Richard J. Auerbach and Auerbach Porter, Madison and oral argument by Richard J. Auerbach.

Comments