## Facts

- Bernard Voronin (husband) and Juanita Voronin (wife) were married while Bernard served in the U.S. Marine Corps.
- Bernard completed 282 months of military service; 244 of those months overlapped the marriage.
- Bernard retired from the Marine Corps in 1975 and became eligible to receive non-disability military retirement pay.
- Bernard filed for divorce on February 12, 1982.
- The divorce was tried to the court without a jury, and the trial court signed a divorce decree on January 31, 1983 (re-dated February 1, 1983).
- In dividing the marital estate, the trial judge stated he was bound by *McCarty v. McCarty* (1981) and therefore treated Bernard’s non-disability military retirement benefits as his separate property, awarding him 100% of those benefits.
- Juanita objected and appealed, pointing out that Congress had passed (and was implementing) the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), which reversed *McCarty* by allowing states to apply their own marital property rules to “disposable retired pay.”

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by awarding the husband all non-disability military retirement benefits as separate property under *McCarty*, in light of the USFSPA and Texas authority applying it to judgments entered after its effective date.
2. Whether the overall division of the community estate was an abuse of discretion because it failed to recognize and divide the community’s substantial interest in the retirement benefits earned during the marriage.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the property division and remanded for a new division of the community estate.
- It held the trial court should not have awarded all non-disability military retirement benefits to Bernard on the theory that *McCarty* compelled that result, because the USFSPA restored state authority to treat qualifying retired pay as divisible under state law.
- Applying Texas community-property principles, the court recognized the community had a substantial interest in the retirement benefits based on the portion earned during marriage.
- Using a time-based formula, the community share was measured by 244 months of service during marriage divided by 282 total months of service (about 86.525% of the retirement benefit stream), subject to a “just and right” division between the spouses.
- Because the trial court’s award of 100% of the non-disability retirement benefits to Bernard ignored that community interest and distorted the overall property division, the appellate court found reversible error and sent the case back for a proper division.

## Legal Principles

- After the USFSPA, state courts may apply state marital property law to “disposable retired pay,” so long as the decree is entered when the Act permits such treatment.
- In Texas, non-disability military retirement benefits earned during marriage are community property to the extent attributable to service during the marriage.
- The community interest in a defined-benefit retirement based on length of service may be measured by a time rule: service during marriage ÷ total service.
- A divorce property division must be “just and right”; awarding one spouse the entirety of a major community asset based on an incorrect characterization can constitute an abuse of discretion and requires reversal and remand.

## Conclusion

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the trial court treated Bernard Voronin’s non-disability military retirement pay as entirely separate property under *McCarty* and awarded it all to him, even though the USFSPA and Texas law allowed division of the community portion attributable to service during the marriage; on remand, the trial court was required to redivide the estate, including the community share of the retirement benefits, in a just and right manner.


Voronin v. Voronin, 662 S.W.2d 102 (1983)