## Facts

- Mark Johnson and Elizabeth Johnson (now Zoric) married in 1974 and divorced in 1984 while Mark served in the U.S. Air Force.
- The 1984 divorce decree awarded Elizabeth “1/2 of 10 years” of Mark’s retirement, because his military pension had not yet vested and could not be valued in a fixed dollar amount.
- Mark remained in the military after the divorce, retired in 1999 with increased rank and additional years of service, and began receiving monthly retirement payments calculated on those post-divorce increases.
- Elizabeth sought direct payment through the military pay agency in 1998, but her application was rejected because the decree lacked sufficient specificity for direct payment processing.
- In 2008, Elizabeth moved for a clarifying order/QDRO-type order to implement her share of the pension being paid to Mark.
- The district court treated the request as enforcement of the 1984 property award and calculated Elizabeth’s share as a marital fraction applied to Mark’s actual retirement benefit, which effectively included post-divorce increases.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, including rejection of Mark’s statute-of-limitations and laches defenses, and it approved an approach that allowed Elizabeth to share in post-divorce enhancements.

## Issues

1. Whether an action to enforce a former spouse’s ongoing right to a share of retirement payments awarded in a divorce decree is barred by a statute of limitations decades after entry of the decree.
2. Whether the court of appeals properly rejected Mark’s laches defense as inadequately briefed under appellate rules.
3. Whether the lower courts erred by applying a method that awarded Elizabeth a share of Mark’s actual retirement benefits that included post-divorce increases in rank and service, notwithstanding decree language awarding “1/2 of 10 years” of retirement.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The enforcement action was not categorically time-barred; each pension payment is a separate installment with its own limitations period.
- The court of appeals did not err in declining to consider laches because Mark inadequately briefed the issue.
- The court of appeals erred in approving a calculation that effectively gave Elizabeth a share of post-divorce enhancements; the case was remanded for recalculation consistent with the decree’s limitation to the marital portion.

## Legal Principles

- A divorce decree awarding a continuing interest in retirement benefits creates an ongoing property right enforceable through periodic payments; limitations analysis applies installment-by-installment rather than barring the entire enforcement action at once.
- Appellate courts may decline to reach an equitable defense such as laches when it is not presented with adequate legal authority, record citations, and developed argument.
- A court enforcing or clarifying a pension division must implement the decree’s awarded marital share and may not, absent decree language to that effect, convert a limited award tied to marital service into an award that captures post-divorce increases in the employee-spouse’s pension.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that enforcement of an ex-spouse’s awarded share of retirement benefits is not wholly barred by delay because each payment is a separate installment, but it rejected a calculation that expanded the decree’s limited “10 years” award into a share of post-divorce pension enhancements and remanded for recalculation consistent with the original property division.


Johnson v. Johnson, 330 P.3d 704 (Utah 2014)