|
|
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENIFITS"
|
|
I am active duty, been in 12 years. Going through a divorce with two young children. Husband and I are parting our ways....yet, both have opted to not "fight" and demand the others retirement. I personally am disgusted with the young couples that get married, things go bad, and its usually the woman (hate to say that) complaining and demanding all these benifits, ect. Its seems like an on going problem. Marriage in the military is just like everything else, yet, so many people abuse the system and think they rate all this money. In some cases, I agree that financial assistance would be benificial, as in situations involving longer marriages where the spouse did not work, but stayed home watching children. In that case, I feel that was their job, and they should recieve support for being displaced due to their divorce...but for these young less than 5 year marriages???? CMON People!! Get dirvorced and move on!!
|
|
Redlegg
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
02/16/07 07:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENIFITS"
|
|
There has to be a medium somewhere. It seems crazy to me that a judge can award a spouse a monetary award for the entire lifetime and even less fair that remarriage never comes into it, and that the spouse can get raises every year as well. I believe the spouse should get something, in the form of rehab/education in order to give them the tools to create a new decent life, but a lifetime award, man oh man, only in the military.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENIFITS"
|
|
Division of retirement as a marital asset has been and always will be a touchy and heated topic for debate. I personally intend to diligently seek division of his retirement in my divorce. He has been active duty for 24 years and I have been married to him for 15, we have 2 children. I feel it is my right to ask for a portion of his retirement. In 15 years we relocated 6 times to different duty stations... of the 15 years a total of 6yrs he was not around due to tdy and deployment. I knew when I married him these were the consequences yet through his absence I took care of the household and the kids as a "single" parent. I worked in contribution to the finances BUT moving hindered my ability to have a "career".
His ability to maintain stability in "his" career during our 15 yrs of marriage was due largely in part to the support he had at home knowing those things were being handled adequately. Therefore I believe and always will that the spouse who places his or her life on hold for an active duty member is entitled!! ( with exceptions to circumstance of course)
|
|
Redlegg
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
02/16/07 02:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENIFITS"
|
|
Whats unfair is that one who is married for one year could get more than you, who was married for 15 years, or someone who was say, a professor at a military academy for 15 years and their spouse did not have to put their life "on hold" for the same 15 years could get as much. The way the act was written after the supreme court decision saying it was not legal leaves no room for exceptions, it leaves it totally up to the discretion of the judge. Thankfully most are reasonable, but that is not really fair. Of course realizing that a military memeber could retire at 37 years of age, an award of probably over 6 or 700 a year for possibly 40 years is quite a bit, even after they remarry, and no matter what they do in their lives. There has to be some protection for the member, and some for the spouse, right now where are the protections for the service member?
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
Military retirement distribution is a touchy subject. It does however seem to be another in a long list of cash cows for the "entitlement" society, currently cultivated in America.
How is a military spouse's life on hold because of military service? Furthermore, how does this entitle anyone to another's retirement? Would you have not taken care of the kids or the household if you had been single? Keeping things together, is life, not something that rates getting a portion of another's retirement, especially for life. I would not expect nor believe that it is something that I am "entitled" to receive or more specifically, something that I had earned.
I can sympathize with all the moves, I had 8 during 20 years, but how does that rate a portion of someone's retirement for life? Changing jobs may entitle someone to some relief until they have job skills, but again not for life.
This is a sore subject as I cannot stand to think that anyone is entitled to something that someone else earned.
If a former spouse is so interested in a military retirement, the military recruiting station is listed in the phone book.
|
|
Redlegg
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
02/28/07 06:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
That is the problem, it seems to be 8 or 800. A spouse's life is not always on hold, but their career may get shortchanged over the years when moving to different places in order for the service member to further his career. Retirements are divided all the time, but a military retirement has no value except on the first of the month. There is no way to value it, so it cannot be a one time division for a specific amount. There is also the fact that it is not a retirement at all, but lower pay for continued service, since you can be recalled and are still subject to the UCMJ. Somewhere in there, there has to be a medium, an award for a certain amount of time, or one that decreases slowly to zero over time, but the way it is now is insane.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
I never thought of it that way. I recently signed a written agreement with my s2bx that he gets 100% of his retirement and I get 100% retirement from my 401K. I always felt that he was the one who earned it, but reading from the posts here I am enlightened. I did put a hold on my career because most of the time he was too busy or obligated with his career. When I went for a consult with a lawyer, he adamantly told me that it's my money too but did not elaborate. I just felt guilty of leaving him so I decided not to take any of his retirement. Should I fight for a portion of his retirement? Then he would fight for mine too but I wont get it until I am over 60. He maybe retiring next year.
|
|
Miranda
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
02/28/07 11:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
He'd take his portion of you 401K NOW, not when you turn 60. It is called a QDRO and it would be removed from your account after the divorce is final and placed into his own IRA or something.
I'd let sleeping dogs lay...
|
|
Miranda
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
02/28/07 11:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
Also remember if he dies one week after retirement, you get nothing and he still got your 401K $$$. I know it is morbid to think about, but I have seen it happen.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
Miranda,
Give me peace of mind that I should let sleeping dogs lay now that I am informed. Talking about ignorance is no excuse.
|
|
Miranda
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
02/28/07 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
[quote]Miranda,
Give me peace of mind that I should let sleeping dogs lay now that I am informed. Talking about ignorance is no excuse. [/quote]
Sorry I don't understand what you mean?
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
MIranda,
I did not realize you posted a second time on my post. Your second reply gave me the peace of mind I needed. Now I don't feel so dumb and bad after all. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENIFITS"
|
|
Lifetime benefits pertain to the 20/20/20: 20 yrs marriage/20 years service/20 years overlap of the two. That's medical, commissary, exchange and up to 50% of retired pay. I say "up to" because there is actually a formula used depending on exactly how many years, 20 or more in any one category. Type military divorce in the search engine and it's easy to find.
|
|
Redlegg
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
03/09/07 07:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENIFITS"
|
|
They are two different things, the 20/20/20 rule and the 20/20/15 are what the military uses to determine benefits that the services will grant. They cannot be changed or used as a bargaining tool. Either the former spouse is eligible or she is not. The military retirement is a different issue. The myth is the up to 50% of the retired pay. There is no limit on the amount of retired pay that a judge can award. The USFSPA allows the individual states to treat a military retirement as community property. There is no set amount, no minimum or maximum required. That some states do use formulas is up to the states, but the fact is that if you are married to a service member, then you can ask for a portion of his retirement when you are divorced, whether it was one day, one year, 10 years or 35 years. In order to have an ID card for life there is no formula except that if you are married for at least 20 years, the spouse has at least 20 years of service, and 20 of those years overlap, then the spouse gets an ID card, no formula involved. The 20/20/15 is for health care, and is a one year transitional program that can be converted to a DOD program, and ends upon remarriage or if you become covered under an employers health plan. It does not matter what the amount that is awarded in a divorce, it could be 60/70 or 80%, but DFAS will only pay out 50% of the disposable retired pay to a former spouse. The USFSPA has no say in what is awarded, only that it can be awarded. And no judge can order or deny benefits that concern an ID card such as medical/AAFES/BX or commissary. The military treats divorce as a private civil matter and will not get involved.
|
|
Arkrube
|
|
(recently joined)
|
|
04/07/07 01:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
I was married for 11 years and have been divorced for two. I had 19 years in the military at the time of the stipulated divorce...she said she wanted to take the "high road" and we would/did part WITHOUT one another's retirements which is stated a couple times throughout our decree.
Now, (two years, later) with credit card bills and a slight gambling problem, she is telling me my military retirement is an entitlement she cannot be denied and should have taken at the time of our divorce; therefore, is entitled to 50% of it post de facto..?
Is retroactivity(?) a real problem and do I have a potential problem on my hands?
|
|
Redlegg
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
04/07/07 09:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
Generally if the wording of the property settlement addresses the military retirement, it is a done deal. There are issues depending on the time, there are basically three different time frames. You have the pre 1981 supreme court decision, (which says it is not property) which there was no law, but it was not generally considered as property, you had the two years from the time of the supremem court decision until congress passed the USFSPA saying individual states can treat it as property, and you have the post USFSPA time frame until now. If you fall in between the supremem court decision, and the passing of the USFSPA, then revisiting the property settlement is common and it is awarded generally. If you got divorced since then and it is mentioned, it will generally not be reopened. There are some exceptions, and one of those is if you were not retired at the time of the divorce, and it was not mentioned specifically, then it can be reopened (it did not exist as property). If you were already retired and it was not specifically mentioned, then it is generally not reopened because the finality of the property settlement is the overriding factor, and it is treated like all other property in the settlement not specifically mentioned. There are always exceptions, and you definitely need to talk to a lawyer who is familiar with the act, there are issues of jurisdiction, where the divorce took place, and where she is petitioning. If she has only talked to you, then she may have already talked to a lawyer who told her its not possible and she is testing the waters. If she is awarded a portion of your retirement it will be for life so it is well worth the time and money to get a lawyer. There is no statute of limitations in the act itself, it just says that it can be treated the same as any other community property as determined by state. It seems each case is different and a lawyer is the only way to go with something that will affect you the rest of your life.
|
|
Arkrube
|
|
(recently joined)
|
|
04/08/07 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
Thanks REDLEGG! I have spoken with two lawyers, male and female, and the County Assistant DA (female) and they both say, "no way" for it states it in the property division and financial settlement part of the decree.
I have read and heard some stories on folks being pulled back in court to be "gutted" on this military retirement scenario.
I have seen it classified as property or an entitlement that can't be given away or denied...I guess I am just tired of hearing the diatribe about, "I should of/could of got your mil-retirement; I am entitled to that."
"Grapes are probably sour anyway"
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS AFTER THE "BENEFITS"
|
|
Benefits???? What benefits???? The only thing of value, benefit wise for me was the medical. Yes, I got a Military ID that granted me access to the Land of the PX and commissary (which I never shopped at anyway), but that was about it. When we divorced his retirement was brought up and I would be entitled to a portion of it going by our "six years" together, and I said no thanks! But, and this is MY opinion, if you if have been with the Military member throughout his/her career then yes I feel that you are entitled. My little six years with him was nothing compared to how long he had been in and experienced before we met.
|