No specific laws identified for this ruling.
This appeal arose from post-divorce litigation concerning the trial court's distribution of marital assets, specifically the distribution of the marital portion of the husband's federal government pension to the wife. In its divorce decree entered on August 10, 2004, the trial court awarded to the wife "1/2 of [the husband's] Administrative Law Judge Government Pension through the date of this Final Decree." Upon the husband's appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, including the trial court's award to the wife of one-half of the marital portion of the husband's pension. Dowden v. Feibus, No. E2004-02751-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 140404 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2006) ("Dowden I"). The husband sought no further judicial review at that time. Following his retirement from federal employment on May 1, 2017, the husband received correspondence concerning the calculation of the wife's portion of his pension from the federal government's Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"). On August 2, 2018, the husband filed a "Motion for Clarification and/or Relief from Judgment" contending, inter alia, that OPM miscalculated the portion of his pension that would be diverted to the wife because the trial court's final decree was "too vague" and did not "provide sufficient guidance to OPM to allow them to correctly compute" the wife's interest in the pension. On December 6, 2018, the trial court entered an order finding that there was "no lack of clarity" in its final decree and denying the husband's motion. The husband has appealed. Having determined that the trial court did not err in denying the husband's motion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand to the trial court for enforcement of the judgment. We decline to award attorney's fees on appeal to the wife.
What This Case Was About
This case involved a divorced couple fighting over how to divide the husband's federal government pension. When Donita Dale Dowden and Ronald J. Feibus divorced in 2004, the trial court awarded Dowden half of her ex-husband's Administrative Law Judge pension earned during their marriage. However, disputes continued after the divorce about how exactly this pension should be distributed, leading to additional court proceedings.
What the Court Decided
The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings (called a "remand"). The court had previously upheld the original divorce decree that gave Dowden half of the pension earned during the marriage, but additional issues needed to be resolved about the specific distribution process.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case highlights an important reality for government employees and workers with pensions: these retirement benefits are considered valuable marital assets that can be divided during divorce proceedings. If you're married and have a pension through your job, your spouse may be entitled to a portion of it if you divorce. This applies to federal pensions, state pensions, and many private employer retirement plans. Workers should understand that pensions earned during marriage are typically considered joint marital property, regardless of whose name is on the account.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.