In 2009, (HOUSE FILE 170) was introduced in Iowa. Iowa Legislature Unanimously Passed the Bill to Protect Veterans’ Disability Compensation from Attachment. This legislation was then it was STOPPED in its tracks. HOW?
SOME INTERESTING DATA:
(HOUSE FILE 170) WAS OPPOSED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:
Ray Zirkelbach (D) is Iowa State Representative for District 3
(HOUSE FILE 170) WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:
Iowa General Assembly unanimously
Representatives Brian Quirk, John Beard, Mckinnley Bailey
Senators Mary Jo Wilhelm and Daryl Beall,
Vincent Reefer, IA Dept of Public Defense
Kent Hartwig, IA Dept of Veterans Affairs
Laverne Schroeder, IA American Legion
(HOUSE FILE 170) WAS UNDECIDED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:
Julie Fleming, IA Dept of Human Services
Molly Kottmeyer, IA Dept of Human Services
SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO HF 170:
Veterans Affairs: Bailey, Chair; Whitead and Windschitl
****************************************************************
House File 170 - Introduced HOUSE FILE BY QUIRK Passed House, Date Passed Senate, Date Vote: Ayes Nays Vote: Ayes Nays Approved A BILL FOR 1 An Act relating to the exclusion of veterans' disability 2 compensation in calculating property disposition and support 3 obligations. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA: 5 TLSB 1900HH 83 6 pf/nh/14 PAG LIN 1 1 Section 1. Section 252B.7A, Code 2009, is amended by 1 2 adding the following new subsection: 1 3 NEW SUBSECTION. 1A. Disability compensation received by a 1 4 party from the United States department of veterans' affairs 1 5 for service=related injuries shall not be considered income 1 6 for the purposes of determining a parent's income under this 1 7 section. 1 8 Sec. 2. Section 598.11, Code 2009, is amended by adding 1 9 the following new subsection: 1 10 NEW SUBSECTION. 4. The court shall not consider 1 11 disability compensation received by a party from the United 1 12 States department of veterans' affairs for service=related 1 13 injuries in determining the amount of temporary support 1 14 awarded under this section. 1 15 Sec. 3. Section 598.13, Code 2009, is amended by adding 1 16 the following new subsection: 1 17 NEW SUBSECTION. 3. Disability compensation received by a 1 18 party from the United States department of veterans' affairs 1 19 for service=related injuries shall not be considered income or 1 20 property for the purposes of disclosing the financial status 1 21 of such party. 1 22 Sec. 4. Section 598.21, Code 2009, is amended by adding 1 23 the following new subsection: 1 24 NEW SUBSECTION. 6A. VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION. 1 25 Disability compensation received by a party from the United 1 26 States department of veterans' affairs for service=related 1 27 injuries shall not be considered property for the purposes of 1 28 this section. 1 29 Sec. 5. Section 598.21A, Code 2009, is amended by adding 1 30 the following new subsection: 1 31 NEW SUBSECTION. 3. VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION. 1 32 Disability compensation received by a party from the United 1 33 States department of veterans' affairs for service=related 1 34 injuries shall not be considered income for the purposes of 1 35 this section. 2 1 Sec. 6. Section 598.21B, subsection 2, paragraph b, Code 2 2 2009, is amended by adding the following new subparagraph: 2 3 NEW SUBPARAGRAPH. (4) For purposes of calculating a 2 4 support obligation under this section, disability compensation 2 5 received by a party from the United States department of 2 6 veterans' affairs for service=related injuries shall not be 2 7 considered income. 2 8 Sec. 7. Section 598.21C, Code 2009, is amended by adding 2 9 the following new subsection: 2 10 NEW SUBSECTION. 1A. VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION. 2 11 Changes in the amount of disability compensation received by a 2 12 party from the United States department of veterans' affairs 2 13 for service=related injuries shall not be considered a 2 14 substantial change in circumstances for the purposes of this 2 15 section. 2 16 EXPLANATION 2 17 This bill excludes from the calculation of property 2 18 disposition and support obligations under dissolution of 2 19 marriage and child support determinations, disability 2 20 compensation received by a party from the United States 2 21 department of veterans' affairs for service=related injuries. 2 22 United States department of veterans' affairs disability 2 23 compensation, in general, is a benefit paid to a veteran due 2 24 to injuries or diseases that were incurred in or aggravated by 2 25 military service. 2 26 LSB 1900HH 83 2 27 pf/nh/14
************************************************************************
FROM ARMY TIMES ON THIS MATTER:
U.S. Military (Ret.): Veterans claim disability pay exempt in divorce cases
By Alex Keenan Posted : Thursday Oct 7, 2010 17:01:19 EDT
The responses to my last two columns on the Former Spouses’ Protection Act show this is a hot-button issue for many retirees.
I’ll close this topic out for now with one response that stood out for slightly different reasons, from a disabled retiree who went to battle with the Iowa state court system and was held in contempt and jailed.
Jerry Bohr, a longtime veterans service officer for the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs, has many years of experience dealing with the needs of veterans.
He is also active in the grassroots groups Operation Firing for Effect (www.offe.org) and the 5301 Club, named for the section of the U.S. Code that deals with attachment of veterans benefits in legal cases.
The groups have been trying to get state legislatures to reinforce a federal law that they say exempts veterans disability payments from being considered as income in divorce settlements.
Bohr, who said he shares custody of his two minor children with his ex-spouse, was ordered to court for refusing to comply with a previous child support order stemming from his divorce decree, which declared his disability pay to be a divisible asset. Bohr claimed the Iowa court lacked jurisdiction or standing under federal law to attach his disability pay.
Judge Richard Stochl of the 1st Judicial District Court of Iowa held Bohr in contempt and had him jailed, with work release, for 30 days starting Sept. 4.
Title 38, Section 5301 of the U.S. Code — a law that dates to the early 1800s — reads in part:
“Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall not be assignable [in court cases] except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.”
Bohr and many other disabled retirees see that wording as an unequivocal declaration that veterans disability compensation cannot be considered as divisible income in divorce, alimony or child support rulings.
Clearly, Stochl thinks differently. And he’s not alone — courts in other states are ordering the division of disability compensation. This is similar to what’s going on with the Former Spouses’ Protection Act — a federal law interpreted in a variety of ways by state courts.
It’s time for Congress to clarify the intent of Section 5301 for our disabled retirees.
—Retired Command Master Chief Alex Keenan served 28 years in the Coast Guard. E-mail him at retired@atpco.com.
http://www.armytimes.com/money/retirement/mil-offduty_retired_101110p/
usvetbloodmoney 