Gregory L. Pelts, Appellant v. Shelly A. Pelts, Appellee

Summary

The court held that Gregory’s vested reserve-retirement interest was legally distinct from his contingent active-duty retirement interest, so the circuit court improperly divided the nonvested active-duty benefits. It also held that requiring Gregory to fund a survivor-benefit plan solely for Shelly’s benefit created an unjustified unequal division of property. The judgment was reversed and remanded, and the court of appeals’ opinion was vacated; Justice Goodson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have upheld the division of military-retirement benefits but agreed that the survivor-benefit ruling required reversal.