Are Oklahoma Taxpayer Dollars Well Spent?
Representatives of Oklahoma have been reviewing numerous bills with different versions of language pertaining to USFSPA issues.
With so many bills in play, it’s difficult to keep up. Can Oklahoma Representatives even differentiate between the bills, and is this good use of Oklahoma taxpayer dollars?
Three bills appear to have virtually the same goals, but contain minor variations:
A fourth USFSPA related bill, HB1951, would establish The Wounded Warrior Protection Act. It focuses on alimony and protecting pay received by wounded service members, but also slips in some USFSPA language. (HB2286 also has alimony language.)
Here’s some wording from the bills declaring calculation for the division of military retired pay:
- HB1951 reads: “…the court shall award an amount consistent with the rank, pay grade, and time of service of the member at the time of separation.“
- HB2286 reads: “… the court shall award an amount consistent with the rank, pay grade, and time of service of the member at the date of filing of the petition.“
- SB1887 reads: “… the court shall award an amount consistent with the rank, pay grade, and time of service of the member at the date of filing of the petition unless the court finds a more equitable date.“
Are Oklahoma representatives carefully reading these bills? Have they taken notice of the different wording and determined if each calculation would be pro-service member or pro-spouse? What if the service member has a line number for promotion? What if the service member is to pin on a new rank the day after separation? What is the rule for determining the “date of separation”?
At least the third wording, in SB1887, leaves the door open for a judge to make an exception for unusual circumstances.
Imagine the confusion if all bills pass as written.
But the main point is: Would it not be easier and cheaper to discuss the USFSPA issues all under one bill?
Has anyone asked Senator Steve Russell (whose name appears on all the bills) to justify why he needed to propose and spend Oklahoma taxpayer dollars on four different bills?
We hear about the federal government wasting taxpayers’ money. Well here’s an example of state level waste. How many hours have been spent reviewing, debating, amending, and transferring these different bills back and forth between the Oklahoma’s house and senate?
Oklahoma Family Law attorneys and the family law section of the Oklahoma Bar Assn Have been working overtime to get ANY of THESE three bills passed (HB2286, HB2285 and SB1887).
However they are not satisfied with the way the bills are currently written, The divorce lawyers want an unlimited amount of time (when a divorce is supposed to be final) to have it reopened again, and renegotiated. They also want any pay raises/promotions after the divorce to be payed to an ex-spouse (again well after the divorce is supposed to have been final divorce).
Proposed legislation will only perpetuate an anti-family, lucrative “lifetime monetary incentive” for the non-military former spouse (and some Non-US citizen former spouses) to initiate divorce due to “no fault” divorce laws.
Do the right thing, amend any legislation (HB 2286, HB 2265, SB 1887) that will single out Veterans for disparate treatment. No other class of citizen’s pay is treated as such. In Oklahoma as in most states when the non military spouse moves in with an aduilt alimony payments stop.
The most current regulation from the US Comptroller of the United States says.
Military Retired pay is not a pension, does not accrue during Marriage and therefore should not be divided in a divorce. Furthermore there are lifetime obligations of the veteran/retiree to the Federal Government is not burdened on the former spouse for this entitlement.
Do not let the Bar Association mislead you into believing otherwise.
Support the troops and not the Famly law attorneys.
Is there a State Legislative law in Oklahoma , that allows wages, which are earned after a divorce to be considered a marital property asset to a former spouse for life?