that Mr. Bowen’s military disability retirement pay was not subject to distribution. She contends that while his VA disability payments are not divisible, the balance of his retirement pay was improperly excluded by the court as disability pay. ¶15 Other state courts have recognized that the issue of whether disability retirement benefits are apportionable is a mixed question of law and fact, subject to de novo review. See, e.g., Marriage of Davies v. Beres, 224 Ariz. 560, 562-63, 233 P.3d 1139 (Ct. App. 2010). This is an appropriate way to characterize our review, given that the task at hand involves taking undisputed evidentiary facts and applying a statutory scheme. See Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 153 Wn. App. 710, 725, 225 P.3d 266 (2009) (Schultheis, C.J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>). ¶16 State courts may divide military retired
holding that statutory construction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts recognizing that appellate court reviews questions of law de novo holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo