William August Lockler, III v. Pamela Michelle Barr Lockler E2016-02308-COA-R3-CV
Oct 11, 2017OUTCOME: The court sided with my client and agreed that the trial court had intended for her to received ½ of the husband's military retirement benefits.
In this case the husband tried to keep my client from receiving half of his military retirement benefits. He tried to say that the divorce decree said she was to receive money if she was "entitled" to ... the funds under federal law, and federal law did not create such an entitlement. The Tennessee Court of Appeals described it below... This case involves the interpretation of a divorce judgment. William August Lockler, III, and Pamela Michelle Barr Lockler were married on January 3, 2002, and divorced on September 6, 2007. In its judgment, the original trial judge, the Honorable Jean A. Stanley, ordered that “If [wife] is entitled under federal law to receive any portion of [husband’s] military retirement benefits[,] then she is awarded one-half (1/2) of those benefits earned during the parties’ marriage.” After husband retired from military service in December 2014, wife filed a petition on February 20, 2015 to reopen the divorce judgment. She sought one-half of husband’s military retirement that had accrued during their marriage. The trial court granted wife’s petition, holding that Judge Stanley awarded wife a portion of husband’s military retirement benefits. Husband appeals, arguing that wife is not entitled to a portion of his benefits because she is only eligible to receive the benefits under federal law and does not have a right to them. We hold that the trial court correctly concluded that the original trial judge intended to award wife onehalf of husband’s military retirement that accrued during their marriage. Accordingly, we affirm.
