This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and addresses whether the Office of Personnel Management may divide a retiree’s annuity supplement if the division of the supplement is not expressly provided for in a court order. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are introductions to the opinions.
Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moutlton (Precedential)
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). This case presents a purely legal question of statutory interpretation—whether, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8421(c) and 8467(a), OPM apportions the annuity supplement only when the terms of a court order (e.g., a divorce decree) expressly provide for division of the supplement. For the reasons below, we conclude that OPM cannot divide a retiree’s annuity supplement unless the division of the supplement is expressly provided for in a court order. Thus, we affirm.
Petlechkov v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In 2018, Dimitar Petlechkov was convicted of mail fraud in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. In the follow-on criminal forfeiture proceedings, the district court awarded the United States a money judgment. In 2023, Mr. Petlechkov sued the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking compensation for an alleged Fifth Amendment taking or illegal exaction based on the assertion that the government temporarily seized real property of his that exceeded the value of this money judgment. The Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petlechkov v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 20 (2024) (2024 CFC Decision). We affirm.