Roland Lee Goad v. Mary Beth Goad, et al.--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Brazos County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-96-132-CV

ROLAND LEE GOAD,

Appellant

v.

MARY BETH GOAD, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 43,136-CCL1

O P I N I O N

Appellant Roland Lee Goad appeals pro se from an order of the trial court dismissing his action against Appellees Mary Beth Goad and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Roland Goad and Mary Beth Goad were divorced September 19, 1980, in the 272nd District Court of Brazos County. Mary Goad was awarded 12/27ths of the military retirement benefits received by Roland Goad. Roland Goad did not appeal and the divorce decree became final. In 1985, Mary Goad applied to the Department of the Air Force for direct withholding of the fractional interest of the retirement pay awarded to her pursuant to 10 U.S.C 14.08. The Air Force Accounting and Finance Service in Denver, Colorado, then commenced direct payments to May Goad of her 12/27th fractional interest.

Roland Goad file suit, pro se in the trial court, against Mary Goad and the Finance and Accounting Service seeking an order recalling the "Request for Former Spouse Payments from Retired Pay" submitted by Mary Goad in 1985. The Finance and Accounting Service was never served with process and did not appear. As noted, the trial court dismissed Appellant's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Appellant appeals pro se on two points of error:

(1) the trial court erred by dismissing this action for want of subject matter jurisdiction because:

a. the trial court had cognizance of the class of cases to which this one belongs;

b. the proper parties were present; and

c. the point to be decided was in substance and effect within the issue presented by the pleadings;

(2) the trial court erred when it declined to quash the Ex parte "Request for Former Spouse Payments from Retired Pay" because:

a. Such Ex parte or "self help" procedures are not permitted under Texas practice for enforcing judgments and decrees issued by Texas courts; and

b. Appellant's pay is exempt from attachment, execution, garnishment, or any other legal process for the satisfaction of a community property claim.

The Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. 1408, authorizes direct payment to former spouses of military retirement benefits. This act applies to the enforcement of a divorce decree made by a Texas Court before or after the effective date of the act (September 1, 1984). Mary Beth Goad made a written request under the act for direct payments to her of the 12/27th of Roland Goad's retirement benefits, furnishing a copy of the divorce decree (which had become final), and the Air Force has been sending Mary Goad the 12/27th of the retirement benefits awarded to her.

The instant case is an effort by Appellant to make an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce judgment of September 19, 1980. This divorce decree was final, no appeal was taken therefrom, and it settled the issues litigated. Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 894; Ex part Goad, 690 S.W.2d 894 (Tex. 1985); Goad v. Goad, 768 S.W.2d 356 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 722. //

Both of Appellant's points are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 20, 1996

Do not publish