# Jackson v. Jackson

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · March 3, 1995 · 656 So. 2d 875

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932569

## Case

- **Full name:** Rebecca L. Jackson v. Anthony E. Jackson.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 3, 1995
- **Citations:** 656 So. 2d 875; 1995 WL 85486
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robertson
- **Judges:** Monroe, Robertson, Thigpen, Yates
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932569

## Opinion text

The Alabama Supreme Court, in overruling the long-standing law of this state as expressed in Kabaci v. Kabaci , 373 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979), stated: "After carefully considering the federal and state authorities . . . this Court is persuaded to change the law of this state governing the treatment of military retirement benefits. We hold that disposable military retirement benefits, as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (a)(4), accumulated during the course of the marriage constitute marital property and, therefore, are subject to equitable division as such." Ex parte Vaughn , 634 So.2d 533 , 536 (Ala. 1993) (emphasis added). 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (a)(4) defines disposable military retirement benefits as "the total monthly retired . . . pay to which a member is entitled. . . ."
In this case, the husband is not entitled to receive any monthly retirement pay. Until the husband has served at least 20 years, he has no vested right in, or entitlement to receive, disposable military retirement benefits. "He is employed by the United States; so Congress could at any time change his retirement plan or abolish it." Durham v. Durham , 289 Ark. 3 , 708 S.W.2d 618 , 619 (1986).
"The decisions of the [Alabama Supreme Court] shall govern the holdings and decisions of [this court]." § 12-3-16 , Ala. Code 1975. The above opinion attempts to expand and enlarge the rule of law set out in Ex parte Vaughn, supra , contrary to § 12-3-16 ; therefore, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932569. Public record. Not legal advice.