Does "spousal support" include part of the retirement pension?

[BelleMere]

DH and BM divorced in 1998. The divorce was granted in Louisiana by default, based on them living apart for 6 months - BM had been served in 1997 but didn't respond, so the judge signed off on it. It was a very basic one page thing that just dissolved the marriage but didn't settle any property/debt issues (didn't leave them open either). Brief mention of custody and visitation.

BM then filed for a CS order and visitation was decided more explicitly at that time (1999). That first CS/visitation order also includes the phrase "BM reserves the right to ask for spousal support at a later date."

So now the question is - what does spousal support mean? Would that be alimony? Or would that include part of DH's military pension (they were married a grand 9 years)?

We know BM thinks it should include the retirement pay, but it was always my understanding that retirement is a property issue, not a spousal support issue. Anyway, BM is in jail and will be for another 8-10 years, so she won't be able to address this any time soon (and by the time she can, she will DEFINITELY be impoverished). I was just wondering what your take on that wording would be.

[socrateaser]

>So now the question is - what does spousal support mean? Would
>that be alimony? Or would that include part of DH's military
>pension (they were married a grand 9 years)?

First, any marital issue not resolved in the final judgment remains open, so your interpretation of what the judgment did is incorrect. The judgment gave you the right to remarry, and that's about all it gave you.

Spousal support is synonymous with alimony. support is not a property interest, that is, it doesn't give you a right to the assets of another person. Rather it gives you the right to that person's ongoing "support."

In effect spousal support (and child support) is legal involuntary servitude, because it forces one person to labor on behalf of another by use of physical force or threat thereof or legal coercion, without first convicting the laboring person of a crime.

Doubtless the authors of the 13th Amendment would have laughed at the notion that a man could be enslaved to his former spouse or minor child(ren). But, the founders are all long dead, and modernly, this violation of the Bill of Rights is given a wink and an nod in every corner of the USA, so don't even think about challenging it, because you'll lose.

The rules for obtaining spousal support are usually pretty strict and they are completely controlled by the law of the state where the divorce was judged final. So, LA law controls any future spousal support dispute, regardless of where that dispute is actually heard in the future.

Frankly, I don't have a clue as to what LA spousal support law is, and because LA is the one state in the union which derives its law from Roman civil law as interpreted by the French, rather than via English common law as interpreted by the American colonists, it would be incompetent of me to venture any guess as to what your respective rights are in this area without my first doing considerable research (which I don't have time to do, and if I did it would cost you a bundle).

So, I must ask that you find a licensed LA attorney with expertise in this area -- otherwise you will probably get incorrect advice.

Sowwy.

[BelleMere]

.

[socrateaser]

Yes, but it will be valued at the fair market at the time of divorce. There are some special rules relating to military pensions. If I'm not mistaken, a military pension is immune from direct garnishment unless the parties were married at least 10 years. This could make it much more difficult to collect what she's awarded, because you can simply not pay it, and she'll have to try to have some of your assets seized by the sheriff.

I haven't dealt with anything military lately, so I could be wrong about the time limit. You should check with the JAG.

As a further example, if you had $100,000 in a joint account at the date of final judgment (assuming she can prove it), and that money was used to buy a home which is now worth $1,000,000, she only has a right to her interest in the first $100K.