Divorced servicemembers and retirees often say they were blindsided by state courts dividing their retired pay as property. The financial stakes of a failed marriage only become clear, it seems, when lawyers get involved.

That's when members learn of a 1982 law - the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act - that allows state courts to view military retirement as an asset jointly earned. USFSPA also directs the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to honor court orders that appear legal on their face and to make direct payments to ex-spouses of up to 50 percent of disposable retired pay, or up to 65 percent if child support also is involved.

A new challenge to the USFSPA has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Fifty-eight divorced servicemembers and retirees, and a fund-raising entity called USFSPA Legal Support Group (ULSG), allege widespread violations of ``due process'' and ``equal protection'' rights in how the law is written and enforced.

It asks the court to find various USFSPA provisions unconstitutional and to direct changes that would eliminate errors and ambiguities, improve procedural safeguards and force state courts to end ``widely divergent interpretations'' of the law.

Through July, 1100 divorced members and retirees had contributed a minimum of $100 each to cover legal fees. In return, contributors are promised periodic updates on the lawsuit. Some lawyers who are expert on divorce law give the lawsuit long odds of success. But a fresh challenge, at a minimum, could help to educate more members and spouses on the USFSPA.

It also could strengthen the spines of members of Congress to consider even modest changes to the law proposed three years ago by the Department of Defense. Those include, for future divorces only, blocking ``windfall'' payments to ex-spouses from longevity gains and promotions earned after divorce, and relaxing for ex-spouses the so-called 20-20-20 rule for them to qualify for medical and other benefits following lengthy service marriages.

In Adkins, et al v. Rumsfeld, lawyers for divorced servicemembers make four broad arguments for finding the USFSPA unconstitutional: That it wrongly was applied to members already in service when the law took effect; it provides inadequate procedural protections against illegal taking of retired pay; it differs prejudicially from laws governing how other federal pensions are treated as marital property, and it is not applied with uniformity by state courts. Therefore, USFSPA violates due process and equal protection rights.

Plaintiffs describe ``a startling degree of dysfunction in a statute that is suppose to have uniform effect throughout the nation.'' This lack of uniformity is seen in the way state courts claim jurisdiction over members, treat the law's 50-percent cap on retired pay disbursements, protect disability benefits and calculate ex-spouse retirement shares.

None of these arguments has merit, the government counters. First, the USFSPA didn't direct state courts to do something new. It merely allowed them to resume treating military retirement as property, following a year's interruption in the wake of the 1981 McCarthy decision. In McCarthy, the Supreme Court said retired pay could not be divided as marital property unless Congress specifically passed such a law. Within a year, it did.

Claims weak procedural safeguards ``blatantly ignore the vast protections afforded by the USFSPA to military members'' both in law and regulation, the government argues. Indeed, it is ex-spouses seeking a share of retirement who face an ``extensive procedural labyrinth.''

Lack of a ``remarriage'' provision in the USFSPA, to end division of retired pay if former spouse remarries, is by design, the government argues. The fact that federal civilian retirees can see their retired pay restored if ex-spouses of a certain age remarry is not a violation of equal protection. The disparity is proper, the government argues, to ensure that ``military spouses are adequately compensated upon divorce for their role in securing the nation and contributing to military success.'' The district court scheduled a September hearing on the government's motion to dismiss. Whatever the court decided was likely to be appealed, keeping the issue alive for many more months or even years.

That's not a bad thing for a law that deserves more attention than provided so far by servicemembers, by spouses and, particularly, by Congress.

Tom Philpott is a freelance writer and syndicated news columnist. His column, "Military Update," appears in 48 daily newspapers throughout the United States and overseas.