WPC, 2F#"VR<@ #Mxc(dE5w h& d/_46wkɹa 9@tV=|9OpL-t2ӂQd#p)qt٣M {EF%F]i$C/1uh}ʖ[ϓBN[?guOZx]8M$k'n(g9r0ZC  1e:b^C 0J*8G[C-ѡƝګ hٕPH1:czyd&{x%oZq;f uKu*V>)6|5r>@H[6NhW֚4- γ4|,yOن B3w>VT4`\/Hn8f:]{9? IͮϨ v c*x+)0Ns?Pb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #  W   0 DNjEUN>>$*""""""""""""#[%&b'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 0 ' ' ' ' B'' 0( D5( D-( 0K)) ASf)) 0* 0D#+ Ag+vY+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+`2X3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R $      3  z   _Becauselaterstatementsofthetrialcourtindicatedthatitattemptedtosetthealimonyatthesameamountas  theanticipatedretirementbenefitsawardedtoWife,weassumethat40%ofHusbandsretirementpaywasapproximately t $400permonth. ` R $      5  z   _Thetrialcourtsorder,whichshouldhaveaccompaniedthememorandumopinionandwastobepreparedby  thewifesthencounsel,wasnotentereduntilmuchlater.Wifehassinceretainednewcounsel. R $      7  z   _InreMarriageof_Gaddis_,957P.2d1010(Ariz.Ct.App.1997).(I Z6Times New Roman Regular  R $      11  z   _WeareunpersuadedbyMr.Hillyersattemptstocharacterizethewaiverofhisretirementpayinexchange  fordisabilitybenefitsassomethingotherthanhisunilateralact.Havingfailedtoretractthewaiverortootherwise t disavowthebenefitsofthesubstitutionofthedisabilitypay,hecannotseektoberelievedofitsconsequencesonthe 8 basishedidnot act.Wenotethat,pursuantto38U.S.C.5305,Husbandwasonlyabletoreceivethedisability L benefits uponthefiling...ofawaiverofsomuchof[his]retiredorretirementpayasisequalinamounttosuch  pensionorcompensation.Further,hehasfailedtopayhisformerspousethemoneythatshestoppedreceivingdirectly  fromthemilitary,certainlyavoluntaryandunilateralactonhispart.InJohnson,theSupremeCourtdistinguishedother H  effectsontheamountsreceived,noting, ofcourse,normalfluctuationsinthevalueofmilitaryretirementbenefitsnot  \ occasionedbytheactsofthepartiescannotconstituteaunilateraldeprivationofavestedinterest.SeeGaddis,957P.2d   at1011(describingfluctuationinmilitaryspousesgrossretirementpay).Butcf.Pierce,982P.2dat999(likening    retirementbenefitsdiminishedbytheunilateralactofmilitaryspousetoamaritalassetthathassimply declinedin X   value).Johnson,37S.W.3dat397n.4.  l    R $      1  z   _In1982,CongressadoptedtheUniformedServicesFormerSpousesProtectionAct,codifiedat10U.S.C.  1408,inresponsetoMcCartyv.McCarty,453U.S.210,101S.Ct.2728(1981),whichheldthatFederallawpreempted t theapplicationofstatecommunitypropertylawtomilitaryretirementpay.  R $      4  z   _Federallawprovidedamechanismbywhichaformerspouseofamilitaryretireecouldreceivehisorhershare  oftheretirementpaydirectlyfromthemilitary.10U.S.C.1408(d);seealsoMansell,490U.S.at585,109S.Ct.at t 2027.Anelectiontoreceivedisabilitybenefitsreducestheamountofretirementpaybytheamountofthedisability 8 payment,therebyautomaticallyreducingthedirectpaymenttotheformerspouse.Johnsonv.Johnson,37S.W.3d892, L 894(Tenn.2001). R $      8  z   _Townerv.Towner,858S.W.2d888(Tenn.1993).  R $      2  z   _Ironically,afterprevailingbeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt,Mr._Mansell_Ԁgotnorelieffromhisdivorcedecree.  Onremand,theCaliforniaCourtofAppealsheldthatMr._Mansell_Ԁhad,bysigningthepropertysettlementagreement, t waivedhisrighttoassertthatthecourthasexceededitsjurisdictionbyawardingthatportionofhisdisabilitybenefits 8 toMs._Mansell_.InreMarriageof_Mansell_,265Cal._Rptr_.227,234(Ct.App.1989).  R $      6  z   _SeeSmithv.Smith,No.M199800937COAR3CV,2001WL242562(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.13,2001)(no  Tenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  R $      9  z   _WenotethatthecaserelieduponbytheSupremeCourt,InreMarriageof_Gaddis_,involvedacourtordered  propertydivisionratherthananagreementbytheparties._Gaddis_,957P.2dat1010. Q R $      10  z   _JudicialmodificationmaybeavailableunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02inlimitedcircumstances,but thebar  forattainingreliefissetveryhigh.Johnson,37S.W.3dat395n.2. - -(|G2 $ !.8d d 8         0  v d(|3$ !.8d d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8d d8     _  R8a<XXdd 8  __@ E3RINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#RE3,#Ԉ &   April15,1999Session L XXR #RXX#JANICECAROLINE(_SHERRILL_)_HILLYER_ J v.CHARLESLEE_HILLYER_XXR   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCounty  ^ @@No.C3805JamesE.Walton,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199800942_COA_ԄR3CVFiledMarch13,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      Theissuesinthispostdivorcecasearisebecausetheformerhusbandswaiverofmilitaryretirement  payinordertoreceivedisabilitybenefitscutofftheformerwifesreceiptofherportionofthe x retirementpaywhichhadbeenawardedtoherinthedistributionofmaritalproperty.Theformer d wifefiledacontemptpetition,seekingtoreinstateherportionofthebenefits.Thetrialcourt,relying P on_Gilliland_Ԁv.Stanley,anunpublishedopinionfromthiscourt,deniedhermotionforcontempt.In < lightofourSupremeCourtsholdinginJohnsonv.Johnson,37S.W.3d892(Tenn.2001),we (x reverseandremand. d E Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt < ReversedandRemanded  (   #RX#XX.RPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,and  WilliamB.Cain,JJ.,joined.  Christine_Zellar_ԀChurch,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JaniceCaroline(_Sherrill_)_Hillyer_. t  MarkA._Rassas_,Clarksville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CharlesLee_Hillyer_. L"!   OPINION #RXXK #XXR $$t# #RXX #  XXR  Thisappealinvolvesissuesrelatingtomilitaryretirementpay.Federallawauthorizesstate %L!% courtstotreatthe disposableretiredpay[ofaservicemember]...eitheraspropertysolelyofthe &8"& memberoraspropertyofthememberandhisspouse,10U.S.C.1408(c)(1), #  1      ׀thusallowing '$#' divisionofsuchretirementbenefitsasmaritalpropertyuponthedissolutionofamarriage.However, ($(  disposableretiredpaydoesnotincludeamountsdeductedfromthatpayasaresultofawaiverof )$) retiredpay...inordertoreceivecompensationunder...title38[disabilitypay].10U.S.C.  1408(a)(4)(B).Inordertoreceivedisabilitypay,aformerservicemembermustwaivea  correspondingportionofhisorherretirementpay.38U.S.C.5305.Disabilitypayisexemptfrom  federal,stateandlocaltaxation,andthisexemptionprovidesanincentiveforaformerservice t membertomakethewaiverwhichotherwisewouldhavenoeconomicimpact._Mansell_Ԁv._Mansell_, ` 490U.S.591,58384,109S.Ct.2023,2026(1989). L    Atthetimethecasebeforeuswasargued,thelawwassettledthatstatecourtscannottreat $ t disabilitypayasmaritalpropertysubjecttodivisionupondivorce._Mansell_,490U.S.at59495,109  ` S.Ct.at2032(statecourtcouldnottreatthatportionofhusbandstotalretirementpaywhichwas  L  disabilitypayasmaritalpropertyinitsdivisionofpropertyatthetimeofdivorce)._ #  2      _ԀHowever,it  8  remainedunsettledwhetherapostdivorcewaiverofretirementpayinexchangeforacorresponding $  amountofdisabilitypaycouldreduceaformerspousespreviousaward,asmaritalproperty,ofa   portionofthemilitaryretirementpay.Thatistheissuepresentedbythefactsofthisappeal.     JaniceCaroline_Sherrill_Ԁ_Hillyer_Ԁ( Wife)wasawardedadivorcefromCharlesLee_Hillyer_   ( Husband)in1986.Thetrialcourtawardedher$400permonthasalimonyfor aperiodoffive p (5)yearsoruntiltheDefendantsretirementfrommilitaryservice,whichevereventoccursfirst. \ ThecourtalsoawardedWife,aspartofhershareofmaritalproperty, fortypercent(40%)ofthe H Defendantsgrossmilitaryretirementbenefits.Ashorttimeafterthedivorce,Husbandretiredfrom 4 themilitaryandWifebeganreceivingher40%ofhisretirementpay. #  3      ׀Shortlythereafter,Husband  p became100%disabledfromheartdiseaseandoptedtoreceiveveteransdisabilitybenefitsrather  \ thanretirementpay.AsaresultofHusbandswaiverofretirementbenefits,Wifenolongerreceived H anyportionofHusbandsincomebasedonhismilitaryservice. #  4      ׀ 4   In1988,afterthepaymentsbasedonHusbandsmilitaryservicestopped,Wifefiledamotion    forcontemptandsanctionsor,alternatively,formodificationofthefinaldecree.Ina1989  memorandumopinion, #  5      ׀thetrialcourtrejectedWifesmotionforcontempt,butstatedthatitwould   modifythedivorcedecreetoprovideforthecontinuationofthe$400monthlyalimonypayments  forthefiveyearperiodfollowingthedivorcenotwithstandingHusbandsretirement,andawardher  ajudgmentfor _arrearages_.Insodoing,thetrialcourtfashionedashorttermsolution,butdidnot t addresstheissueofwhetherWifewasentitledtoherpreviouslyawardedshareofHusbands ` retirementbenefits.Husbandpaidthejudgmentandthealimonyasordered.Whenthemodified L  alimonyawardterminated,HusbandstoppedpayinganythingtoWife. 8      In1996,Wifefiledasecondcontemptpetition,arguingthatthedesignationofHusbands  ` retirementpayasdisabilitybenefitsdeprivedherofthepaymentsorderedundertheoriginaldivorce  L  decreebyreassigningherportiontoHusband,whorefusedtoreimburseher.Thepetitionalso  8  soughtjudgmentonthe_arrearages_ԀHusbandhadnotpaid. $    AhearingwasheldonApril28,1998,atwhichHusbandmadethefollowingstipulations:   8  Thatin1988,hesuffered,ontwoseparateoccasions,twoseparateheartattacks.In   1993,heunderwentbypasssurgery,1995,hewasdiagnosedwithcongestiveheart p failure,in1996,hebecameonthelistasahearttransplantcandidate.Heisnow \ receivingonehundredpercent(100%)VAdisability.Hedidnotsubmitan H applicationforthis.WhenhewasinSt.Thomas,itisapparentlytheirprocedure, 4 theymailedhisrecords,sinceheisaveteran,totheVAandtheVAdesignatedhim  p asonehundredpercent(100%)disabled.Hereceivesnomilitaryretirementpay.  \ TheonlymoniesthathereceivesishisVAdisabilityandhehasnootherincome H fromothersources.4     Relyingon_Gilliland_Ԁv.Stanley,No.3258,1997WL180587(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.16,1997)   (noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled),anunpublishedcasefromthiscourt,thetrialcourtdenied  thereliefsoughtonJune2,1998.Wifecommencedthisappeal.    I. l %'  Shortlyafterargumentofthiscase,thiscourtheardargumentinanothercaseinvolvingthe D! sameissueandwasinformedthatseveralothercasesinvolvingtheissuewereinvariousstagesof 0"  litigationorappeal. #  6      ׀Afewmonthslater,theWesternSectionofthiscourtreleaseditsopinionin #l! Johnsonv.Johnson,No.02A019901CV00015,1999WL713574(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.14,1999), $X" andheldthatreliefwasnotavailableunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02toaformerwifewhosemonthly $D # shareoftheformerhusbandsmilitaryretirementbenefitswasreducedby$181.00permonthbyhis %0!$ waiverofaportionofhisretirementpayfordisabilitybenefits.TheSupremeCourtofTennessee &"% thengrantedpermissiontoappealinJohnsonandhasnowissueditsopinionwhichguidesour  decisioninthecasebeforeus.Johnsonv.Johnson,37S.W.3d892(Tenn.2001).    InJohnson,thepartiesenteredintoawrittenmaritaldissolutionagreement(MDA)which t awardedthewife $1,845.00permonthassupportuntilthehusbandretired,atwhichtimeshe ` would receiveonehalfofallmilitaryretirementbenefitsduethehusband.Johnson,37S.W.3d L  at894.Afterthehusbandsretirement,thewifereceived$1,446permonth,halfofthehusbands 8  retirementpay,foraboutayear.Thehusband laterelected,pursuanttofederallaw,toreceivea $ t portionofhisretirementpayintheformoftaxfreedisabilitybenefits.Hisretirementpaywas  ` reducedbytheamountofthosedisabilitybenefitstoavoiddoublepayment....Id.Asaresult,  L  thewifesshareoftheretirementpaywasalsoreduced.Thewifepetitionedthecourttomodifythe  8  finaldecree,askingthatthehusbandbeorderedtopayalimonyinthesameamountherpayments $  hadbeenreduced,orinthealternative,tomodifythejudgmentpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(5)   (apartymayberelievedfromjudgmentfor anyotherreasonjustifyingrelief).Id.Thetrialcourt   andthiscourtdeniedrelieftothewife,holdingthat_Gilliland_Ԁv.Stanley,whichdeniedrelieftothe   formerspouseunderverysimilarcircumstances,controlled.TheSupremeCourtgrantedMs.   Johnsonsapplicationtoappeal,andreversed. p   TheSupremeCourtnoted,thatwhilealimonyawardsmaybemodifiedundercertain H circumstances, courtordersdistributingmaritalpropertyarenotsubjecttomodification.Id.at 4 895.TheCourtthenheldthatmilitaryretirementpayismaritalpropertysubjecttodistributionand  p thatthepaymentstoMs.Johnsonwereperiodicdistributionsofmaritalpropertyratherthanalimony.  \ Assuch,thedivisionofretirementpaywasnotsubjecttolatermodification.Id.Ratherthan H decidingthatthisconclusionprecludedrelieftoMs.Johnson,theCourtdeterminedthatithadthe 4 oppositeeffect.   __8  Weareoftheopinion,however,thatMs.Johnsonscharacterizationofherpetition  asoneseeking modificationisincorrect.Thewholeofherargumentandthe  remedysheseeksindicatethatshedesiresnomorethanthatwhichsheoriginally  receivedatthetimeofMr.Johnsonsretirement:onehalfofthe militaryretiredpay l hewasentitledtoreceiveatthetimeofhisretirement._._Ԁ..[Herargument]alleges X  thatthepartiesagreedtoacourseofaction,thatthetrialcourtorderedthataction, D! andthatMr.Johnsonhasfailedtoperformasordered.0"    Id.at89596. $X"   TheCourtlookedtothetermsoftheMDA,anddeterminedthat allmilitaryretirement %0!$ benefitswasnotdefinedinthedocument,butfoundthephrasetobeunambiguous.Id.at896.The &"% Courtfoundthat allmilitaryretirementbenefitshasausual,natural,andordinarymeaning, all '#& amountstowhichtheretireewouldordinarilybeentitledasaresultofretirementfromthemilitary. (#' Id.Accordingly,theCourtheldthat Ms.Johnsonsinterestinthoseretirementbenefitsvested )$( asofthedateofentryofthecourtsdecree andcouldnotbeunilaterallyaltered .Id.at897. |*%)  h+&*   Itfurtherheld:  8  _That_Ԁruleoflaw,however,istheveryreasonMs.Johnsonprevailsinthiscase.Once  Ms.JohnsonobtainedavestedinterestinMr.Johnsons retirementbenefits,Mr. t JohnsonwasprohibitedfromtakinganyactiontofrustrateMs.Johnsonsreceiptof ` hervestedinterest. Nothinginthe[_USFSPA_]suggeststhatacourtsfinalawardof L  acommunitypropertyinterestmust[ormay]bealteredwhenthemilitaryretiree 8  obtains[disabilitybenefits]._Gaddis_,957P.2dat1013._ #  7      _ԀMr.Johnsonsfailure to $ t compensateMs.Johnsontotheextentofhervestedinterestinhisretirementbenefits  ` constitutedaunilateralmodificationoftheMDAandthedivorcedecreeinviolation  L  ofTowner.T #  8      ׀ 8    8  WeholdthatwhenanMDA dividesmilitaryretirementbenefits, thenonmilitary   spousehasavestedinterestinhisorherportionofthosebenefitsasofthedateofthe   courtsdecree.Thatvestedinterestcannotthereafterbeunilaterallydiminishedby   anactofthemilitaryspouse.Suchanactconstitutesanimpermissiblemodification   ofadivisionofmaritalpropertyandaviolationofthecourtdecreeincorporatingthe p MDA.\   8  Insoholding,weareundeterredbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrulingin 4 _Mansell_Ԁv._Mansell_,490U.S.581(1989)._Mansell_heldthatthe_USFSPA_Ԁ doesnot  p grantstatecourtsthepowertotreataspropertydivisibleupondivorcemilitary  \ retirementpaythathasbeenwaivedtoreceiveveteransdisabilitybenefits. The H trialcourtsdecreedidnotdivideMr.Johnsons disabilitybenefitsinviolationof 8 _Mansell_. $   Id.at897898(citationsomitted).    TheCourtremandedthecasetothetrialcourtwithinstructionsthatthetrialcourt enforce  itsdecreetoprovideMs.Johnsonwiththeagreeduponmonthly_payment_Ԁ...withoutdividing Mr. t Johnsonsdisability_pay,_ԀhavingalreadydeterminedthatMs.Johnsonsvestedinterestinhalfof `  Mr.Johnsonsretirementpayentitledherto$1,446.00permonth.Id.at898. L!   II. $#t! H  _The_ԀcasebeforeusdiffersfromJohnsoninonerespect:the_Hillyers_ԀdidnothaveanMDA. $L # Ms._Hillyer_srighttoashareofMr._Hillyer_sretirementpayarisesfromtheorderofthecourt %8!$  enteredaspartoftheirdivorceproceedingsin1986.Thefactthatthe_Hillyers_ԀdidnothaveanMDA &$"% doesnotaffecttheapplicationofJohnsontothiscase._+ #  9      _ԀTheconclusionreachedbytheSupreme   CourtinJohnsonisbasedtoalargeextentontheprinciplethatadistributionofmaritalproperty  cannotbelatermodifiedbyoneoftheparties., #  10      ׀Thisprincipleappliesbecausethepropertydivision  becameajudgmentofthecourt._Towner_Ԁv.Towner,858S.W.2d888,890(Tenn._1993)z XX.#XX z(N#_ԀThus,it t istheincorporationoftheMDAintothecourtorderwhichmadeitnonmodifiable.Id.;_Penland_Ԁv. ` _Penland_,521S.W.2d222,224(Tenn.1975).TheSupremeCourtslanguageinJohnsonaffirmsthis L  reasoning, thedivorcedecreesapportionmentofthatmaritalpropertyisnotsubjectto 8  modification.Johnson,37S.W.3dat895.Similarly,thecourtsprimaryholdinginJohnsonmakes $ t theabsenceofanMDAirrelevant: WefurtherholdthatMs.Johnsonsinterestinthose retirement  ` benefitsvestedasofthedateofthecourtsdecreeandcouldnotbeunilaterallyaltered.Id.at897.  L  TheCourtfurtherheldthatanactofamilitaryformerspousewhichreducesoreliminatesavested  8  interestofthenonmilitaryformerspouseinretirementpay constitutesanimpermissible $  modificationofadivisionofmaritalpropertyandaviolationofthecourtdecreeincorporatingthe   MDA.Id.Itisjustasmuchanimpermissiblemodificationandviolationofthecourtdecreewhere   thedivisionofpropertywasorderedbythecourtwithoutanMDA.h #  11         @vv(III. p   LikeMs.Johnson,Ms._Hillyer_Ԁbroughtthisaction inordertorecouptheloss...of H support,intheformofdeferreddistributionofmaritalproperty,thatresultedfromherformer 4 spouseselectiontoreceivedisabilitybenefitsandhisfailuretodirectlymakeupthatloss.Wehold  p thatattheentryofthedivorcedecreeMs._Hillyer_Ԁobtainedavestedrighttofortypercent(40%)of  \ Mr._Hillyer_s grossmilitaryretirementbenefitsandisentitledtoenforcethatdecree. H   Accordingly,wereversethetrialcourtsdenialofrelieftoMs._Hillyer_Ԁandremandthiscase   tothetrialcourtforproceedingsnecessaryandappropriate,consistentwiththisopinion,toenforce   its1986decreedistributingmaritalproperty,includingconsiderationoftheamounthismonthly  obligationtoheraswellasherrequestfor_arrearages_.Husbandshallbecreditedwithsuchamounts  ashepaidinalimonyinaccordancewiththetrialcourt'sorderextendingthedurationofthealimony  obligation.AstheSupremeCourtdirectedinJohnson,suchenforcementshallbeaccomplished t withoutdividingMr._Hillyer_sdisabilitypay.Weinterpretthatinstructionasonlylimitingthetrial ` courtsabilitytoorderdirectpaymentstoMs._Hillyer_Ԁfromthe_payor_ԀofMr._Hillyer_'sbenefits,which L  weunderstandtobetheVeteransAdministration. 8    Costsaretaxedtotheappellee,CharlesLee_Hillyer_,forwhichexecutionmayissueif  ` necessary.  L     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE