Hearn v. Hearn

936 A.2d 400 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This case arises from a post-divorce dispute between the parties, Peter (H) and Pamela (W). Mr. and Mrs. Hearn were divorced in 1999. A detailed separation agreement was signed on September 15, 1999, but was not merged, into the final divorce judgment entered on September 15, 1999. The separation agreement described how the pro rata formula for the division of H's pension benefits would be calculated. The parties negotiated a proposed consent order to require OPM to divide H's pension benefits in accordance with their separation agreement. The proposed order expressly indicated in the preamble that it was intended to carry out the parties' agreement regarding the pension as the parties had previously set forth in their separation agreement. The order used the pro rata formula agreed upon by the parties in the separation agreement. The order was submitted to OPM. OPM accepted the order and would apply the pro rata formula to the gross payment due to be paid to H at retirement rather than the net annuity. On August 22, 2006, H filed a motion requesting that the court instruct OPM to enforce the order by applying the agreed fraction to H's net annuity, rather than the gross amount of the retirement annuity. P claimed it was to be applied to the net amount and not the gross. W denied that any action by the circuit court was required to carry out the intentions of the parties, and further asserted that all of H's claims for relief with respect to the terms of the order were barred by laches. W claimed the order was in accordance with her intent. The language of both the separation agreement and the order doesn't use the word gross and OPM’s default is always gross. The language used in both the separation agreement and the order uses the words payment . . . payment received by the employee . . . .. The court denied H's motion. The court noted that the order is not ambiguous because the regulations by which OPM administers orders make clear that the agreement was to apply to gross benefits. H appealed.