The DC Court of Appeals in ANGULO v. GOCHNAUER, deconstructed a divorce property settlement agreement as it related to the Foreign Service Act.   

Parties in advance of divorce, had reached a property settlement agreement that in general terms released one another from any future property claims with no specific mention of the statutory provisions of the Foreign Service Act.

Specifically, parties had incorporated in a general release clause of the property settlement agreement that they desired: to settle all rights, interests and obligations between them and to obtain a full, complete and final property settlement and agreement, including a settlement of all property interests and all claims between or against each other.

Moreover, the clause extended:

Each party hereby forever discharges, relinquishes and releases all right, title and interest which he or she now has or ever had or ever may have in and to the real, personal and mixed property of the other; all rights of curtesy and dower; all right, title and interest which he or she has or may ever have in and to the property or estate of the other at death, all right and interest to take against the other’s will or under the intestate laws, and each and every other claim of right, title or interest he or she has or may ever have against the other[.] . . .

After an internal review, and a petition by the spouse entitled to benefits under the Foreign Service Act, the State Department ruled that: because the settlement agreement failed to specifically mention the waiver of all rights of entitlement under the Foreign Service Act, appellee was entitled to a share of appellant’s monthly retirement benefits and the potential survivor benefits.

Appellant initiated this appeal seeking judicial review essentially arguing that the property settlement agreement through the general, and all-encompassing waiver clause had both addressed and waived all future claims against the Foreign Service benefits.

The Foreign Service Act by Statute confers upon former spouses of members of the Foreign Service a retirement annuity of up to fifty percent of the participant’s annuity.  Congress had believed that the provision was needed to compensate for the inequities inherent in the Foreign Service life, which have fallen disproportionately on spouses of Foreign Service employees.

Although the settlement agreement made no express mention of rights under the Act, the issue for the Court was whether any language less specific than directly addressing Foreign Service benefits in the settlement agreement would be sufficient as a waiver.

The settlement agreement, had express provisions that:

• Each party had the right to dispose of any and all property now or in the future owned personally by him or her, without claim by the other and that each party relinquished and,
• Released to the other all rights and curtesy or dower that he or she may have in the property hereinafter acquired by either of them.

The Court ruled that the statutory rights under the Foreign Service Act could not be waived by general waivers or releases.

Moreover, the agreement here did not mention retirement rights or pension benefits generally, much less refer to rights under the Act and thus the agreement was entirely insufficient as to waiver under the Foreign Services Act.

Although the subject matter in dispute was rather finite and abstract, the take away is rather significant: the divorce property settlement agreements in order to be enforceable and to pass the test of litigation must be obsessively detailed and encompass and address all statutory retirement benefits and rights.

Refer to our Washington DC Divorce Lawyer page for more details on this and other DC divorce related subject matters.