Legal Opinion

Hartley v. Hartley

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 2009No. S-13002PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

■ John and Tina Hartley’s pre-divorce property settlement agreement awarded Tina fifty-seven percent of the monthly benefit accrued in John’s Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) defined benefit plan. The agreement did not specify whether Tina’s payments should be based on John’s highest three salary years during the marriage or upon his future retirement. Nor did it specify who should bear the cost of Tina’s FERS survivor benefit or how that benefit should be divided.

The superior court’s FERS qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) based Tina’s…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Commissioner v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Wessells v. State, Department of HighwaysAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Schanck v. SchanckAlaska Supreme Court · 1986
  4. In Re the Marriage of HuntSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  5. Faulkner v. GoldfussAlaska Supreme Court · 2002

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Johnson v. JohnsonAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Cook v. CookAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Villars v. VillarsAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Glover v. RanneyAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Gunn v. GunnAlaska Supreme Court · 2016

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API