The Court of Appeals upholds a divorce order that let a severely disabled military retiree keep 55% of the marital share of his retirement. Pederson v. Pederson, Va. Ct. App. Unpub. 8/2/16 His incapacity alone would justify that, the Court says, and the wife was able to earn $100,000 per year while the husband was unemployable. It also cited evidence of the wife contacting his superiors, which judges around here don't like, these days:
Evidence related to wife’s inappropriate e-mail exchanges with husband’s superior officer, her reports to authorities of alleged professional misconduct by her husband (reports that ultimately were deemed unsubstantiated by those authorities), and the circumstances surrounding husband’s decision not to accept the promotion to Wing Commander provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that wife was less than supportive of husband’s career.
The Court also upheld the refusal to include in the retirement-division order a requirement to indemnify the wife for reducing disposable retired pay by electing disability. Though that was considered legal at that time, nothing required the trial court to do so.
Survivor benefits: Code § 20-107.3(G)(2) gives the court discretion to award any survivor benefit, or not to.
The opinion includes many other points about appellate procedure, life insurance beneficiary designations, and conservatorship, but I don't believe they break any new ground.