Filed by Conrad · Case 26-104594-DO
02 Brief Federal Preemption VA Benefits 2026-04-15
Canonical record: rockenhaus.net. Disputed domains are indexed at /disputed-domains/ (not authoritative).
Loading document…
Filing text (searchable excerpt)
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
FAMILY DIVISION, DOMESTIC RELATIONS
ADRIENNE MARJORIE ROCKENHAUS, Case No. 26-104594-DO
Plaintiff,
Hon. Yvonna C. Abraham
v.
CONRAD ALAN ROCKENHAUS,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF REGARDING FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF VA DISABILITY
COMPENSATION AND SSDI BENEFITS
NOW COMES Defendant, Conrad Alan Rockenhaus, appearing pro se, and respectfully submits this Brief
regarding the federal preemption of Veterans Affairs Disability Compensation and Social Security Disability
Insurance benefits. This Brief is filed in response to Plaintiff's claim, made both in her Verified Complaint
and in her Response to Defendant's Motion to Terminate the Personal Protection Order (Case No. 26-
102221-PP), that she was entitled to Defendant's federally protected disability benefits.
I. PLAINTIFF'S OWN COUNSEL CONCEDES THE BENEFITS ARE SEPARATE PROPERTY
1. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff's own counsel has already conceded the central legal point of this Brief. In
her Response to Defendant's Motion to Terminate the PPO, counsel for Plaintiff states: "Federal law
recognizes payment of VA and SSDI as separate property, these sources of income are used to
calculate support obligations and utilized to support the marital status quo in Domestic Relations cases."
(PPO Response, p. 3). This admission is dispositive. Plaintiff's own attorney acknowledges that VA and
SSDI benefits are "separate property" under federal law, not marital property to which Plaintiff has any
ownership claim.
2. Yet despite this concession, Plaintiff has diverted, retained, and refused to return approximately
$39,326.87 in Defendant's VA Disability Compensation and SSDI benefits. The question before this
Court is not whether Plaintiff was entitled to these funds, her own attorney says she was not. The
question is what remedy is appropriate for the unauthorized taking of federally protected funds that even
Plaintiff's counsel acknowledges are separate property.
II. VA DISABILITY COMPENSATION IS NOT MARITAL PROPERTY
3. Federal law expressly prohibits state courts from treating VA disability compensation as marital or
community property subject to division in a divorce. The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection
Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. §1408, authorizes states to treat only "disposable retired pay" as divisible
marital property. The Act expressly excludes from "disposable retired pay" any amounts deducted "as a
result of a waiver . . . required by law in order to receive" disability benefits. 10 U.S.C. §1408(a)(4)(B).
4. The anti-assignment provision of 38 U.S.C. §5301(a)(1) further provides:
Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary
shall not be assignable 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.
5. The United States Supreme Court has twice confirmed that federal law completely preempts state courts
from dividing VA disability benefits as marital property. In Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989), the
Court held that a state court may not treat veteran disability benefits as community property subject to
division. In Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), the Court unanimously reaffirmed this principle,
holding that state courts cannot order veterans to indemnify former spouses for reductions in retirement
p
Excerpt of 15106 characters. Download the full PDF for complete text.
About this filing
02 Brief Federal Preemption VA Benefits 2026-04-15: filing by Conrad Alan Rockenhaus in Rockenhaus v. Rockenhaus (Divorce), Michigan Case No. 26-104594-DO, Wayne County Circuit Court. PDF and searchable text at rockenhaus.net (canonical court record). Disputed third-party domains: /disputed-domains/.
- File name
02_Brief_Federal_Preemption_VA_Benefits_2026-04-15.pdf- Filed date
- Case number
- 26-104594-DO
- Category
- Filed by Conrad
- Disputed domains
- View disputed domains (asserted controlled by Adrienne Rockenhaus; not authoritative).
- Related context
- FAQ, Joe Prich evidence, Rob Hein
- Canonical record
- rockenhaus.net