Eddy v. Eddy
Texas Court of Appeals
710 S.W.2d 783 (1986)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Peggy Eddy (plaintiff) and Clarence Eddy (defendant) were married and subsequently divorced. Upon divorce, a trial court entered a divorce decree distributing community property between the Eddys. The divorce decree did not mention or dispose of Clarence’s military retirement benefits. On June 26, 1981, the United States Supreme Court, in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981), held that military retirement benefits were the separate property of the service member and could not be distributed to spouses in community-property states. On September 9, 1982, the president signed a law permitting spouses to share in military retirement pay, but only for periods beginning after 1981. The legislation essentially reversed McCarty. The Eddys’ divorce decree was rendered in the gap after McCarty was decided and before the federal legislation’s effective date. After the time to appeal the divorce decree expired, Peggy sued Clarence to partition his military retirement benefits on the ground that the divorce decree did not address the military retirement benefits and McCarty no longer applied. The trial court had awarded all the military retirement benefits to Clarence because at the time the divorce decree was entered, McCarty was still law. The court found that Peggy could not relitigate the divorce decree because it already had become final. Peggy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carroll, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
