Grier v. Grier
Texas Supreme Court
731 S.W.2d 931 (1987)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Edward Grier (plaintiff) was married to Elsie Grier (defendant) for several years before they divorced. At the time of the divorce, Edward was a major in the United States Army. Edward was not yet entitled to receive his military-retirement distributions. Although at the time of the divorce, Grier was placed on a list to be promoted to lieutenant colonel, Edward was not actually promoted until eight months after the divorce. After Edward and Elsie’s divorce, a trial court entered a divorce decree that distributed the parties’ community property. The decree did not distribute Edward’s military retirement benefits, because Edward was not eligible to receive the benefits at the time of the divorce. When Edward was eligible to receive his retirement benefits, Elsie sued Edward seeking partition of the benefits. Edward sued separately for a declaratory judgment that his retirement benefits were not community property. The trial court awarded Elsie 37.45 percent of Edward’s retirement benefits based on Edward’s rank of lieutenant colonel. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the value of the retirement benefits must be based on Edward’s rank of major because Edward held the rank of major at the time of divorce. Elsie appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wallace, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
