Gail McIntosh Smith v. Herbert H. McIntosh

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/01/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091202 G a i l McIntosh Smith v. Herbert H. McIntosh Appeal from Dale C i r c u i t Court (DR-01-344.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . G a i l McIntosh Smith terminating husband") ("the w i f e " ) a p p e a l s the obligation of Herbert H. from a judgment M c I n t o s h ("the t o name h e r as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f h i s m i l i t a r y 2091202 Survivor Plan ("SBP") life-insurance policy issued Insurance life-insurance policy"). The Benefit ("the record and 1 by i n d i c a t e s the as the Serviceman's following. marriage, t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d on J u l y 23, judgment ("the 2001 judgment") and interest [husband's] retirement." The After 2001. explicitly a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d by t h e p a r t i e s . waived " a l l r i g h t b e n e f i c i a r y of Group a Life a 31-year The divorce incorporated an In t h a t agreement, the w i f e i n and t o any p o r t i o n of the husband agreed to " m a i n t a i n t h e SBP i n s u r a n c e on b e h a l f o f [ t h e w i f e ] and a g r e e [ d ] t o m a i n t a i n t h e l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y in effect through the military insuring the [ h u s b a n d ' s ] l i f e and [ t h e h u s b a n d ] a g r e e [ d ] t o name t h e [ w i f e ] as i r r e v o c a b l e b e n e f i c i a r y . S a i d SBP and t h e l i f e i n s u r a n c e i s i n l i e u o f a l i m o n y and i s additional support to the [ w i f e ] and is nondischargeable i n bankruptcy." I n S m i t h v. S m i t h , 190 W. Va. 402, 404, 438 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1993), t h e West V i r g i n i a Supreme C o u r t o f A p p e a l s p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g s u c c i n c t d e s c r i p t i o n of the SBP: 1 "The survivor benefit plan i s designed to provide financial security to a designated b e n e f i c i a r y o f a m i l i t a r y member, p a y a b l e o n l y upon t h e member's d e a t h i n t h e f o r m o f an a n n u i t y . Upon t h e d e a t h o f t h e member, a l l p e n s i o n r i g h t s a r e extinguished, and the only means of support available to s u r v i v o r s i s i n the form of the survivor benefit plan." 2 2091202 The w i f e a l s o w a i v e d any r i g h t t o r e c e i v e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and alimony i n gross. On November 2 1 , 2001, t h e w i f e She was 49 y e a r s o l d at the time of that marriage. h u s b a n d was payment also told of the wife's o f t h e SBP p r e m i u m s . discontinued payment married Jimmy remarriage, he Hataway. When t h e discontinued The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t of the premiums on the he life- i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y he h a d , w h i c h named t h e w i f e as b e n e f i c i a r y . He said that, premiums, he a t the time had been he discontinued diagnosed with payment cancer and of the that the premiums f o r t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y were i n c r e a s i n g t o t h e p o i n t t h a t he c o u l d no l o n g e r On April notified of her 23, 2007, the the Defense Finance divorce from a f f o r d them. wife divorced and A c c o u n t i n g Hataway and Hataway. Service requested She ("DFAS") that she be r e i n s t a t e d as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s SBP, as a l l o w e d by f e d e r a l law. notified with the wife's request and t h e h u s b a n d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d b e e n r e i n s t a t e d as t h e SBP b e n e f i c i a r y . arrearage DFAS c o m p l i e d At the request o f DFAS, t h e h u s b a n d p a i d an o f t h e SBP premiums t h e h u s b a n d h a d n o t p a i d the time t h e w i f e had been m a r r i e d 3 t o Hataway. during 2091202 In wife March 2008, as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y the beneficiary. she was wife for the husband remarried. removed o f h i s SBP and named h i s new w i f e I n September 2009, a f t e r she l e a r n e d no l o n g e r t h e b e n e f i c i a r y filed He the as that o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s SBP, t h e a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g t o h o l d the husband i n contempt h i s f a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n h e r as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f b o t h t h e SBP and t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . The trial court held two hearings on the wife's c o m p l a i n t ; o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d a t b o t h h e a r i n g s , but the m a t e r i a l f a c t s are not i n dispute. was "on t h e i s s u e of the p r o v i s i o n of [ t h e husband's] d e f a u l t [of the 2001 judgment] maintain the l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . " the trial ruled court that requiring to hearing i n that portion requiring him A f t e r the f i r s t i n t e r l o c u t o r y order provision in the to hearing, i n which i t 2001 judgment the l i f e - i n s u r a n c e policy as t h e i r r e v o c a b l e b e n e f i c i a r y o f t h a t policy stated bankruptcy," periodic the an the husband t o m a i n t a i n explicitly support entered because naming t h e w i f e The f i r s t that the [wife] the alimony. the "requirement and [was] requirement was, Therefore, 4 the [was] additional non-dischargeable in effect, trial court an award found, in of the 2091202 r e q u i r e m e n t was m a t e r i a l and The trial subject t o m o d i f i c a t i o n upon a s h o w i n g o f s u b s t a n t i a l change i n circumstances. a 2 c o u r t h e l d a second h e a r i n g " f o r the purpose of r e c e i v i n g evidence r e l e v a n t to a m o d i f i c a t i o n or other a c t i o n on this Court's p r o v i s i o n of finding." the At the [2001 judgment] second h e a r i n g , in light of this the husband argued t h a t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s to m a i n t a i n the l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y and t h e SBP to and n a m i n g t h e w i f e as b e n e f i c i a r y o f e a c h were due be t e r m i n a t e d because of the w i f e ' s remarriage. On the other hand, the w i f e a s k e d the c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g i n the i n t e r l o c u t o r y order h o l d i n g t h a t the the an requirement to l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y n a m i n g t h e w i f e as b e n e f i c i a r y award of p e r i o d i c alimony. A f t e r the c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on J u n e 18, 2010, law p r o v i d e s the maintain hearing, the was trial r u l i n g t h a t Alabama t h a t a f o r m e r s p o u s e ' s s u b s e q u e n t m a r r i a g e ends o b l i g a t i o n of the other former t h e r e f o r e , the c o u r t concluded, spouse to pay when t h e w i f e m a r r i e d alimony; Hataway I t i s u n c l e a r whether the t r i a l c o u r t i n t e n d e d f o r both t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y and t h e SBP t o be i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the term " l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . " However, as discussed b e l o w , t h e h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o m a i n t a i n t h e w i f e as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f b o t h t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y and t h e SBP was a d d r e s s e d a t t h e s e c o n d h e a r i n g and i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l judgment. 2 5 2091202 in 2 0 0 1 , t h e husband's insurance policy obligations to maintain a n d t h e SBP and naming b e n e f i c i a r y o f each ended. The t r i a l relief The w i f e The the p a r t i e s sought. wife argues t h a t the t r i a l husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o m a i n t a i n the b e n e f i c i a r y ended when the the wife court denied life- as t h e a l l other appealed. court's ruling that the t h e SBP naming t h e w i f e as she r e m a r r i e d was f e d e r a l l a w , w h i c h , she c o n t e n d s , a p p l i e s i n t h i s contrary case. to 3 When A l a b a m a l a w i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h f e d e r a l l a w o r w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a f e d e r a l p r o g r a m , t h e f e d e r a l l a w must take So. in precedence. Metropolitan 2d 589, 591 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . t h r e e ways. extent General First, Life I n s . Co. v . P o t t e r , 533 Preemption of s t a t e law occurs C o n g r e s s may d e f i n e e x p r e s s l y t o what a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e preempts s t a t e law. E l e c . Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . may be f o u n d when a p e r v a s i v e See E n g l i s h v . Second, p r e e m p t i o n scheme o f f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n I n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y t e r m i n a t e d t h e husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o m a i n t a i n t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y n a m i n g t h e w i f e as t h e beneficiary. T h e r e f o r e , t h e w i f e has w a i v e d t h a t argument. See W a d d e l l & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e I n s . Co., 875 So. 2d 1143, 1167 ( A l a . 2003) ( " I s s u e s n o t a r g u e d i n a party's b r i e f are waived."); a n d R o b e r s o n v. C.P. A l l e n C o n s t r . Co., 50 So. 3d 471, 478 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . 3 6 2091202 makes i t r e a s o n a b l e t o i n f e r t h a t C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n of the subject matter. p r e e m p t i o n o c c u r s when t h e r e exclusive I d . a t 79. Third, i s a d i r e c t c o n f l i c t between t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f a f e d e r a l law and t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f a s t a t e law. Id. In United Mansell States v. M a n s e l l , Supreme C o u r t 490 U.S. 5 8 1 , 587 (1989), t h e stated: "Because d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s a r e p r e e m i n e n t l y matters of state l a w , we have consistently recognized t h a t C o n g r e s s , when i t p a s s e s general legislation, rarely intends to displace state a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s area. See, e . g . , Rose v . R o s e , 481 U.S. 619, 628 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; H i s q u i e r d o v. H i s q u i e r d o , 439 U.S. 572, 581 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Thus we have h e l d t h a t we w i l l not f i n d preemption absent evidence that i t i s '"positively required by direct enactment."' Hisquierdo, supra, a t 581 ( q u o t i n g Wetmore v. M a r k o e , 196 U.S. 68, 77 ( 1 9 0 4 ) ) . " Furthermore, " [ o ] n t h e r a r e o c c a s i o n when s t a t e f a m i l y l a w has come i n t o c o n f l i c t w i t h a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e , this C o u r t h a s l i m i t e d r e v i e w u n d e r t h e Supremacy C l a u s e t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether Congress has ' p o s i t i v e l y r e q u i r e d b y d i r e c t e n a c t m e n t ' t h a t s t a t e l a w be preempted. Wetmore v . M a r k o e , 196 U.S. 68, 77 ( 1 9 0 4 ) . A mere c o n f l i c t i n w o r d s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t . S t a t e f a m i l y a n d f a m i l y - p r o p e r t y l a w must do 'major damage' t o ' c l e a r a n d s u b s t a n t i a l ' f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t s b e f o r e t h e Supremacy C l a u s e w i l l demand t h a t s t a t e law be o v e r r i d d e n . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y a z e l l , 382 U.S. 341, 352 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . " 7 2091202 Hisquierdo v. H i s q u i e r d o , 439 U.S. pertinent questions whether conflicts its are with the express consequences 572, 581 the (1979). right as "The asserted terms o f f e d e r a l law and whether sufficiently i n j u r e the objectives of the f e d e r a l program t o r e q u i r e n o n r e c o g n i t i o n . " R i d g w a y v . R i d g w a y , 454 U.S. 46, 55 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , I d . a t 583. I n the United States Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t a s t a t e - l a w d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , other law relations, governing must give the way economic to aspects clearly of conflicting "like domestic federal enactments." S e c t i o n 30-2-55, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "Any d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e p r o v i d i n g f o r p e r i o d i c p a y m e n t s o f a l i m o n y s h a l l be m o d i f i e d b y t h e c o u r t t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s u c h a l i m o n y upon p e t i t i o n o f a p a r t y t o t h e decree and p r o o f t h a t t h e spouse r e c e i v i n g such a l i m o n y has r e m a r r i e d o r t h a t such spouse i s l i v i n g openly o r c o h a b i t i n g w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x . " C o n g r e s s e n a c t e d t h e l e g i s l a t i o n c r e a t i n g t h e SBP i n 1972 to provide children 1972, benefits of deceased Pub. L. No. amended at 10 to military 92-425, U.S.C. surviving §§ spouses retirees. 86 S t a t . 706 1447-1455). 8 and dependent A c t o f Sept. 21, ( 1 9 7 2 ) ( c o d i f i e d as In 1982, C o n g r e s s 2091202 expanded t h e l i s t former spouses. Protection 735-36 of p o t e n t i a l See Uniformed A c t , Pub. L. No. (1982). SBP b e n e f i c i a r i e s Services 97-252, § to include Former 1003, 86 S t a t . Upon t h e d e a t h o f an SBP p a r t i c i p a n t , her b e n e f i c i a r i e s r e c e i v e monthly a n n u i t y payments. § 1450(a). SBP Spouses' I f a former spouse 706, h i s or 10 U.S.C. who i s t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f an r e m a r r i e s b e f o r e r e a c h i n g age 55, t h e f o r m e r s p o u s e ' s SBP coverage i s suspended. 10 U.S.C. § 1 4 5 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) . However, i f t h a t m a r r i a g e " i s t e r m i n a t e d by d e a t h , annulment, or divorce," the former spouse can a p p l y f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e suspended former-spouse coverage. 10 U.S.C. § 1 4 5 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) . No A l a b a m a c o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r preempts state l a w on the subject e n t i t l e m e n t t o SBP b e n e f i t s . of a 10 U.S.C. § 1450 former spouse's I n Dugan v. C h i l d e r s , 261 V a . 3, 7, 539 S.E.2d 723, 724 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f V i r g i n i a was asked t o determine whether 10 U.S.C. § 1450 preempted s t a t e l a w "on t h e s u b j e c t o f a f o r m e r s p o u s e ' s e n t i t l e m e n t t o the survivor former spouse benefits sought annuities that a received, arguing of a m i l i t a r y retiree." t o impose a c o n s t r u c t i v e servicemember's that, when 9 the surviving former I n Dugan, a trust on SBP spouse spouse had and t h e 2091202 servicemember d i v o r c e d , the former t h e s e r v i c e m e m b e r h a d a g r e e d t o name s p o u s e as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f h i s SBP. servicemember remarried, b e n e f i c i a r y t o h i s new w i f e . however, he changed A Virginia trial When t h e the SBP court found the servicemember i n contempt and d i r e c t e d him t o r e i n s t a t e t h e f o r m e r s p o u s e as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y ; however t h e s e r v i c e m e m b e r died before doing so. Dugan, 261 V a . a t 5-6, 539 S.E.2d a t 723-24. In i t s preemption found persuasive Supreme Court t h e f o l l o w i n g language from a G e o r g i a Court of Appeals' o p i n i o n analysis, the V i r g i n i a addressing a similar factual situation: "'The r i g h t t o t h e a n n u i t y a s s e r t e d by [ t h e former spouse] pursuant to the divorce decree c l e a r l y c o n f l i c t s with the express p r o v i s i o n s of the SBP u n d e r w h i c h [ t h e m i l i t a r y r e t i r e e ' s ] s u r v i v i n g spouse i s the b e n e f i c i a r y of the annuity. In p r o v i d i n g t h e means b y w h i c h f o r m e r s p o u s e s may become e n t i t l e d t o SBP a n n u i t y b e n e f i t s , C o n g r e s s e n a c t e d p l a i n and p r e c i s e s t a t u t o r y language p l a c i n g c o n d i t i o n s a n d l i m i t s on t h a t r i g h t a n d made c l e a r t h a t any a n n u i t y b e n e f i t s p a i d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e SBP a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o l e g a l process. Since the provisions o f t h e SBP unambiguously p r e c l u d e t h e r i g h t s a s s e r t e d under t h e divorce decree, we further conclude that the consequences o f e n f o r c i n g t h e c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t e law p r i n c i p l e s s u f f i c i e n t l y injures the objectives of t h e SBP s o t h a t f e d e r a l l a w p r e e m p t s t h e a u t h o r i t y of s t a t e law.'" 10 2091202 Dugan, 261 V a . a t 8, 539 S.E.2d a t 725 ( q u o t i n g K i n g v. K i n g , 225 Ga. App. 298, 3 0 1 , 483 S.E.2d Virginia 379, 383 c o u r t t h e n f o u n d , as d i d t h e G e o r g i a (1997)). appeals The court, t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f f e d e r a l l a w p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e SBP made c l e a r t h a t Congress i n t e n d e d " ' t o occupy the f i e l d ' " under the circumstances. v. Silva, 1998)). law, a 261 V a . a t 9, 539 S.E.2d a t 725 ( q u o t i n g 333 S.C. 387, 3 9 1 , 509 S.E.2d 483, 485 Accordingly, the V i r g i n i a court held Silva ( C t . App. that federal s p e c i f i c a l l y 10 U.S.C. § 1450, p r e e m p t e d s t a t e l a w as t o former annuity. court spouse's right to claim entitlement See a l s o S i l v a v. S i l v a , s u p r a d i d n o t have t o an (holding that a state t h e a u t h o r i t y t o preempt p r o v i s i o n s o f f e d e r a l l a w p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e SBP u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s to those SBP i n Dugan); a n d B a r r o s similar v. B a r r o s , 34 Wash. App. 266, ( s t a t e s cannot apply community-property 660 P.2d 770 (1983) law t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f SBP a n n u i t i e s ) . In M e t r o p o l i t a n Life Insurance Co., s u p r a , o u r supreme c o u r t was c a l l e d upon t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r f e d e r a l l a w a l l o w e d a former husband t o change t h e b e n e f i c i a r y on E m p l o y e e s ' Group L i f e I n s u r a n c e in a divorce proceeding, Federal ("FEGLI") p o l i c y e v e n t h o u g h , a state 11 a court had ordered him t o 2091202 maintain his policy. former wife Following the as of ("SGLIA"), 30 inconsistent federal FEGLI the state § law, 765 our provisions must of a s t a t e - c o u r t I n s . Co., 533 So. 2d of by Ridgway, Group Life seq., supreme and prevailed court held over that of a b e n e f i c i a r y of a judgment. Metropolitan and 594-95. Our supreme "just program." 594. As mentioned, legislation survivors Congress's pertaining to the of servicemembers. c e r t a i n circumstances, purpose SBP was Congress in creating to provide has servicemembers' former are e n t i t l e d for o f SBP. reinstatement governing the SBP can r e g a i n as the b e n e f i c i a r y provide t h e p r o c e d u r e by h i s or her status 12 as an SBP The which the f o r the determined whose s u b s e q u e n t m a r r i a g e s have e n d e d spouse the inconsistent because i t d e a l t w i t h a d i f f e r e n t f e d e r a l i n s u r a n c e under Act supersede divorce a t 590 Insurance c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t R i d g w a y c o u l d n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d Id. at the Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e et preempt beneficiary established law g o v e r n i n g the d e s i g n a t i o n policy Life States Servicemen's U.S.C. sole precedent supra, i n which the United provisions the that, spouses to apply statutes a former beneficiary. 2091202 In this case, the trial husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o m a i n t a i n of SBP b e n e f i t s applied Alabama continue court's court determined the wife was i n t h e n a t u r e law t o preclude that the wife o f an a l i m o n y the wife's was no l o n g e r contrary to the provisions the circumstances receive SBP benefits m a r r i a g e ends. under i f the which a former The entitled o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s SBP once she r e m a r r i e d forth award and eligibility benefits o f 10 U.S.C. the as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s SBP. ruling that to trial to the i s clearly § 1450, w h i c h sets former can spouse's spouse subsequent As was t h e c a s e i n t h e a u t h o r i t i e s p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d , t h e consequences of e n f o r c i n g t h e c o n f l i c t i n g s t a t e law "sufficiently injures" the objectives p r o g r a m so as t o r e q u i r e Neither the t r i a l therefore, insofar as remarried, we i t held the wife h u s b a n d ' s SBP. SBP preemption. c o u r t n o r t h i s c o u r t has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o preempt t h e p r o v i s i o n s SBP; of the f e d e r a l reverse that, of federal t o the t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l based on was n o t e n t i t l e d In reaching law p e r t a i n i n g § when to the benefits this holding, 13 30-2-55, court she of the t h i s c o u r t makes no 2091202 d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e w i f e i s , i n f a c t , the proper b e n e f i c i a r y o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s SBP. The judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and this c a u s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. The h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 14 without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.