House Bill 1263 is an act relative to the definition of disposable military retirement pay and the suspension of alimony obligations. Rep. Jim Maggiore (D-North Hampton) sponsored this measure at the request of a constituent. Other co-sponsors include members from both parties, including four current or former GOP committee chairs.
The testimonials and correspondence received by the sponsors are heartbreaking and gut-wrenching, an endless litany of how military retirees, male and female, have been ill-served by a 1982 law enacted by Congress known as the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA). This act does NOT create a federal right to any portion of military retired pay on behalf of the former spouse, but rather recognizes that the states may divide it as marital property.
And that is the rub. Is the retirement pay earned by a military retiree marital property? HB1263 simply seeks to remove military retirement pay from the definition of gross income under RSA458:19.
Countless examples abound of USFSPA abuses. There’s no shortage of cases where the non-military spouse does very well financially but still receives up to half of a retiree’s retirement pay, often leaving the retiree in dire straits.
Consider this message from Karen:
“My husband and I are living a nightmare now because of this Act, the only Federal divorce law that specifically targets only a military service member. My quandary is, why is my husband still paying at 95 years old? Years ago, I tracked the allotments beginning in 1983 from my husband to his former spouse. Year one, a partial year, the amount was $7.5k. As of 2025, it will be over $31k, the cumulative amount over the upcoming 43rd year will be approaching $800,000. Given a wise investment of those funds with compound interest of even 5% would yield close to two million dollars. An excessive amount, a clear violation of the 8th Amendment.”
Or from Anna, a veteran herself.
“A federal law that entitled my ex-husband to 38 per cent of my retirement, due specifically to a 1982 law enacted by Congress, known as the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA). For the last two years, 38 per cent of my (and I stress “my”), monthly retirement pay goes to my husband, despite the fact that I have custody of our child and he makes much more money than me, over $100,000 a year.”
Felisa is yet another female veteran with yet another sad story:
“I was married for 14 years to a husband that abused drugs and alcohol, I tried to help him but at the end couldn’t any further. Part of our divorce entailed him receiving 35.5% of my retired pay…$621.00/monthly for the rest of his life, terminated upon my death or his. The public probably perceives the story of the male veteran that leaves his wife and family after 20 years to pursue another life, not all stories are the same. I was an Air Force member who held a very important position in the Squadron and could not afford to have my husband jeopardize my career and my life any further. As a First Sergeant, I counseled troops on doing the right thing and being good Air Force members; I wasn’t living up to that by covering up for my husband’s shortcomings. I stood by him for so many years without successfully turning him around. He now is very successful as a real estate agent and doesn’t need my retirement money!”
And so it goes.
Passing HB1263 would give a relief option to certain deserving veterans that’s currently unavailable in New Hampshire. It would provide latitude for the courts to issue fairer judgements for the likes of Karen, Anna, Felicia, and so many other veterans, male and female, who essentially receive unfair and lifelong financial sentences due to an unnecessary fealty to a faulty federal measure (USFSPA).
A version of this measure came to Children and Family Law Committee another time and fell short. Part of the reason was the opposition from the N.H. State Veterans Advisory Committee, (SVAC) which mistakenly saw the earlier version as a threat to spousal support for deserving spouses. SVAC no longer opposes this type of legislation in 2026.
Also, divorce lawyers opposed the earlier version for their own reasons, citing preferred precedents and statutes. Other attorneys see things very differently. Indeed, the inspiration for Rep. Maggiore’s constituent’s outreach came from an attorney.
It’s not easy to pass legislation. And it shouldn’t be. But deserving measures eventually move forward on second or third tries.
Hopefully HB1263 is such a measure.
