Jesse Plasola v. California, et al.

The Congress recognized, during passage of the 1986 FERSA, that a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account that has a zero balance is not subject to court orders under the terms of the legislation that specifically di­ rected that accounts that are at a zero balance, the courts have no jurisdiction. Comparing the facts with the legal requirements under regulations prescribed by the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) that makes it un­ lawful for the court to acquire jurisdiction for a “closed account” 5 CFR § 1653.2(b)(1). The question presented is as follows: Whether the state court’s 09- 14-2006 TSP final judgment divorce decree violated The Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335,100 Stat. 514 and 5 CFR § 1653.2(b)(1)?

When the parties divorced in 2006 and their prop­ erty was divided, petitioner was not an employee but a separated non-employee who had previously resigned at the age of 40 and there was no property to divide. Due to Petitioner resignation, he was ineligible for the FERS immediate annuity and FERS annuity supple­ ment at the time of divorce and thereafter. Separately and unpredictably, Petitioner years later, was hired post-divorce in an entirely different job and different job classification with the BOP, while a resident of a different state. The family court ordered 12 years later, petitioner’s future nonmarital separate property to in­ demnify respondent for the amount of that reduction