In 2008, the
parties’ consent judgment of divorce was entered, awarding plaintiff-wife 50%
of defendant-husband’s military retirement benefits, but no part of his
military disability benefits, which are not considered marital property under
federal law. Defendant thereafter became
eligible for and began receiving increased disability benefits, which in turn
reduced his retirement benefits and the amount plaintiff received. When defendant failed to make up the
difference to plaintiff (as contemplated by the divorce judgment), the trial
court held defendant in contempt of court and ordered him to make payments
toward his arrearage. Defendant
appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Megee v Carmine, 290 Mich App 551, 574-575 (2010), which held that “a
military spouse remains financially responsible to compensate his or her former
spouse in an amount equal to the share of retirement pay ordered to be
distributed to the former spouse as part of a divorce judgment’s property
division when the military spouse makes a unilateral and voluntary postjudgment
election to waive the retirement pay in favor of disability benefits contrary
to the terms of the divorce judgment.” The
Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in
light of Howell v Howell, 581 US ___;
137 S Ct 1400; 197 L Ed 2d 781 (2017), which held that a state court may not
order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced
spouse’s portion of the veteran’s retirement pay caused by the veteran’s waiver
of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits. On remand, the Court of Appeals again
affirmed, holding that Howell did not
overrule Megee. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal
to address: (1) whether the principles of
Howell apply to combat-related
special compensation (CRSC), 10 USC 1413a; (2) if so, whether Megee remains good law in light of Howell; and (3) whether the Court of
Appeals was correct in upholding the Dickinson Circuit Court’s November 6, 2014,
contempt order against defendant.