ARTHUR M. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHARINA K. WILLIAMS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A former husband appeals a garnishment order against his federal military retirement benefits to satisfy arrearages owed to his ex-wife under a Texas divorce decree. The court holds that although Texas does not recognize alimony, the award of a portion of the husband's retirement benefits is tantamount to alimony for purposes of federal law allowing garnishment to enforce such obligations.
The court holds that the Texas decree's award of retirement benefits to the former wife constitutes 'alimony' for purposes of federal law allowing garnishment, notwithstanding that such payments may be inconsistent with Texas public policy regarding alimony.
[1] Federal statutes permitting the enforcement of state alimony obligations against federal retirement benefits apply to payments characterized as property division in commu…
[2] A Texas divorce decree's division of a spouse's retirement pay account, including provisions for a money judgment if direct payment is impossible, is considered alimony f…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Like the well-known rose by another name, these postmarital benefits of the Texas decree are tantamount to alimony for the purposes of statutes of the United States securing the enforcement of state alimony awards.”
Establishes the court's functional approach to characterizing the Texas award as alimony despite Texas's policy against such characterization.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Williams was required by a Texas divorce decree to provide his former wife, Ms. Williams, with a sum equal to 19/48 of his gross monthly military …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Texas Community Property Law cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
By interlocutory appeal, Mr. Williams complains of the circuit court’s order for writ of garnishment subjecting his United States retirement benefits to payment of $5,735.72, plus costs, to Ms. Williams, his former wife, in satisfaction of a Florida judgment for arrearages payable by Mr. Williams under a Texas divorce decree. The United States has consented to be sued for the enforcement of any legal obligation by Mr. Williams to “make alimony payments.” 42 U.S.C. § 659.
Mr. Williams, supported in his argument by the United States Attorney, urges that the payments required of him by the Texas divorce decree were not for “alimony.” As a community property state, he argues, Texas forbids alimony as against public policy. McBride v. McBride, 256 S.W. 2d 250 (Tex.Civ.App.1953). In dividing the parties’ community property, the Texas decree provided:
“(3) The retired Pay Account of Petitioner, ARTHUR M. WILLIAMS, is hereby divided 19/48 to Respondent, KA-THARINA K. WILLIAMS, and 29/48 to ARTHUR M. WILLIAMS as to said Account and all future payments and benefits therefrom.
“If Federal Statutes or regulations prevent the direct payment to Respondent of her share in such retired pay account as and when payments are made, then, in that event, the Respondent is hereby awarded a sum of money equal to 19/48 of the gross monthly retired service pay of Petitioner, ARTHUR M. WILLIAMS, as and when monthly payments are received by him from said retired pay account as a money judgment against Petitioner, and for the recovery of which execution may issue in case of nonpayment; or enforcement of this award and judgment may be had in any manner provided by law . .
Like the well-known rose by another name, these postmarital benefits of the Texas decree are tantamount to alimony for the purposes of statutes of the United States securing the enforcement of state alimony awards. See In re Nunnally, 506 F. 2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1975), in which the Court of Appeals held a similar Texas award of pension benefits was “alimony” within the meaning of § 17 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 35(a), providing that debts “for alimony due or to become due” are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. For the same reasons, liquidated arrearages due Ms. Williams may be considered “alimony” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 659 notwithstanding that the “alimony” may be offensive to Texas policy.
Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1979)…rts disagreed on whether the alimony that could be made the subject of garnishment included community property. Compare United States v. Stelter, 553 S. W. 2d 227, 229 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977), rev’d, 567 S. W. 2d 797 (Tex. 1978); Williams v. Williams, 338 So. 2d 869 (Fla. App. 1976), with Marin v. Hatfield, 546 F. 2d 1230 (CA5 1977); Kelley v. Kelley, 425 F. Supp. 181, 183 (WD La. 1977). In 1977, Congress added § 462 (c) and resolved that question. The amendment was the subject of a prior Committee Report, S. R…
Authorities Cited
- In re Nunnally v. Nunnally, 506 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1975)