of the divorce, that he does not owe Defendant any debt with regard to military retirement, and, in
the alternative, that any such debt to Defendant regarding the military retirement be classified as a
dischargeable, unsecured, nonpriority debt. In the Claim Order, the Court previously disallowed
Defendant’s request for an increased “coverture” share of Debtor’s military retirement under
Florida law,
8
therefore any request for an increased share of the retirement in this action is barred
by res judicata.
9
See Vieira v. Harris, 512 B.R. at 557. The Court also found in the Claim Order
that there was no basis to rescind the Settlement Agreement for fraud. Therefore, Defendant is
bound to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1 (“Any married
couple is hereby authorized to execute a separation agreement not inconsistent with public policy
which shall be legal, valid, and binding in all respects; provided, that the separation agreement
must be in writing and acknowledged by both parties before a certifying officer ….”)
The Claim Order left open the issue of Defendant’s interest in the retirement benefits
provided for by the Settlement Agreement. During the trial, Defendant’s counsel stipulated that
any claim would be a nonpriority, unsecured, and dischargeable claim. The Settlement Agreement
provides the following regarding military retirement:
Part III, Section 7, RETIREMENT, PENSION AND 401(k) ACCOUNTS
Both parties understand and agree that each may have accumulated during the
course of the marriage certain retirement, pension, 401(k) or similar accounts.
The parties understand and agree that each party shall be the sole and separate
owner of all such accounts in that party’s name. Each party agrees to sign any
documents or other instruments which might be necessary to release their
interest in those said accounts in the other’s name. However, it is understood
and agreed that the Wife will receive twenty percent (20%) of the amount of
retirement received by the Husband from the Army as determined from his
8
The disallowance of Defendant’s claim for an increased “coverture” share under Florida law was primarily
based upon the Court’s conclusion that North Carolina law, not Florida law, governed the Settlement Agreement.
9
It further appears that Defendant’s request for an increased share of the retirement would be procedurally
barred under North Carolina law based upon her failure to specifically apply for equitable distribution of this asset
prior to the judgment of absolute divorce. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 50-11(b) (“An absolute divorce obtained within
this State shall destroy the right of a spouse to equitable distribution under G.S. 50-20 unless the right is asserted prior
to judgment of absolute divorce.”)