169.572. Dissolution of marriage, court not to divide retirement benefits or Social Security benefits. — 1. No court shall divide or set aside any federal old-age, survivors or disability insurance benefit provided to any party pursuant to the federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 200 et seq., in any proceeding for dissolution of marriage.
2. Subsequent to August 28, 1991, a court of competent jurisdiction may divide the pension, annuity, benefits, rights, and retirement allowance provided pursuant to this chapter between the parties to any action for dissolution of marriage, to the same extent and in the same manner the court may divide any federal old-age, survivors or disability insurance benefit of the parties provided pursuant to the federal Social Security Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases, 1993–2016 · leading case:
Silcox v. Silcox, 6 S.W.3d 899 (Mo. 1999).
Silcox v. Silcox, 6 S.W.3d 899 (Mo. 1999).
· cites it 36× “Silcox claims that section 169.572 requires her retirement benefits be treated as non-marital property.”
In Re Marriage of Woodson, 92 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. 2003).
· cites it 15× “Husband attacks the validity of section 169.572 RSMo 2000 1 as applied to a teacher also covered by social security.”
Hal Orange v. Jeanine R. White, 502 S.W.3d 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “First, Husband claims that the trial court erred in including his social security and teacher’s retirement benefits in its calculation of his income because the benefits are nontransferable and unassignable under Section 169.572 (RSMo. 2000) 1 and the Social Security Act, 42 U.”
In Re Marriage of Box, 968 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 5× “Robert bases his third point on § 169.572, RSMo 1994. It reads: “1. No court shall divide or set aside any federal old-age, survivors or disability insurance benefit provided to any party pursuant to the federal Social Security Act, 42 USC Section 200 et seq.”
Holt v. Holt, 976 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “In the late 60’s Husband began his teaching career with the Missouri Public School System; and has accumulated a substantial retirement fund of $130,748, which is by statute considered non-marital property, and is not subject to division under § 169.572 RSM0 1994 1 . In 1974,…”
Knapp v. Knapp, 874 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “1993); Section 169.572, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1993. 4 .”
David v. David, 954 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Nor is it clear that the parties had a true meeting of the minds about the meaning of an “equal division.”
Bohon v. Bohon, 102 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Section 169.572 requires a Missouri teacher’s retirement account to be treated in the same manner as social security benefits.”
Davis v. Davis, 107 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “at 902 ; section 169.572. Missouri follows the “source of funds rule.”
Kieninger v. Catlett, 854 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Section 169.572 repealed § 169.142, RSMo Supp.”
Mallams v. Mallams, 861 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Wife raises two points on appeal arguing that the trial court erred in distributing the marital assets of the parties because: 1) the distribution was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in that it was heavily and unduly weighted in favor of Husband; and 2) the trial court…”
Gismegian v. Gismegian, 849 S.W.2d 201 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Wife relies on the recently enacted RSMO § 169.572 (1991) in support of this contention.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.