{
  "id": 8525660,
  "name": "RAYMOND LEE JOHNSON v. MIRIAM ELAINE JOHNSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 848DC960",
  "first_page": "593",
  "last_page": "595",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 593"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 3125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.766328987390059e-08,
      "percentile": 0.495325596202713
    },
    "sha256": "0b9ec06d7ea52126d709cc12a21f9c9df9ca7fb06482cf8cf9b06db3e58a40de",
    "simhash": "1:20a17aa6d422b797",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:43.207286+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RAYMOND LEE JOHNSON v. MIRIAM ELAINE JOHNSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nThe sole issue to be determined in this case is whether the trial court erred by finding that the plaintiff\u2019s vested military retirement benefits was separate property not subject to equitable distribution under G.S. 50-20(a). For reasons which follow, we hold that, under the facts of this case, the trial court\u2019s finding was correct.\nPlaintiff and defendant were married 21 May 1955 while the plaintiff was on active duty with the United States Air Force. Plaintiff retired and began drawing retirement benefits 1 May 1974. Plaintiff and defendant separated 8 January 1982, and the plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce on 10 January 1983. Divorce was granted 29 March 1983. A hearing to determine equitable distribution was conducted 10 July 1984, and the trial court\u2019s order of equitable distribution was filed 13 July 1984. The trial court found that plaintiff\u2019s military retirement was separate property not subject to equitable distribution. Defendant appealed.\nThe Equitable Distribution Act was enacted in 1981. 1981 N.C. Sess. Laws Ch. 815. As originally enacted, the last sentence of G.S. 50-20(b)(2) provided: \u201cVested pension or retirement rights and the expectation of nonvested pension or retirement rights shall be considered separate property.\u201d In 1983, the General Assembly rewrote that sentence to read: \u201cThe expectation of nonvested pension or retirement rights shall be considered separate property.\u201d 1983 N.C. Sess. Laws, Ch. 758. It added a new sentence to G.S. 50-20(b)(l): \u201cMarital property includes all vested pension and retirement rights, including military pensions eligible under the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses\u2019 Protection Act.\u201d Id. The amendments in Chapter 758 were made \u201ceffective August 1, 1983, and shall apply only when the action for absolute divorce is filed on or after that date.\u201d 1983 N.C. Sess. Laws Ch. 811.\nThus, if the action for divorce is filed before 1 August 1983, all pension and retirement rights are considered separate property for purposes of equitable distribution. If the divorce action is filed on or after 1 August 1983, vested pension and retirement rights are considered marital property, and the expectation of nonvested rights are considered separate property. In this case, plaintiff filed for divorce on 10 January 1983. The trial court correctly found plaintiffs retirement rights to be separate property.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barnes, Braswell & Haithcock by Tom Barwick for defendant appellant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RAYMOND LEE JOHNSON v. MIRIAM ELAINE JOHNSON\nNo. 848DC960\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 30\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 vested military retirement benefits\nThe trial court properly held that plaintiffs vested military retirement benefits constituted separate property not subject to equitable distribution where plaintiffs divorce complaint was filed prior to 1 August 1983, the effective date of the 1983 amendment to O.S. 50-20(b)(l).\nAppeal by defendant from Setzer, Judge. Order entered 13 July 1984 in District Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 April 1985.\nBarnes, Braswell & Haithcock by Tom Barwick for defendant appellant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0593-01",
  "first_page_order": 625,
  "last_page_order": 627
}