Berry v. Board of Retirement
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | STEPHENS |
| Citation | 100 Cal.Rptr. 549,23 Cal.App.3d 757 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1972 |
| Parties | Elizabeth M. BERRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 38106. |
Page 549
v.
BOARD OF RETIREMENT of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 550
Joslyn, Roeth, Angerhofer & Condon, by R. B. Joslyn, Pasadena, for plaintiff and appellant.
John D. Maharg, County Counsel, by Martin E. Weekes, Deputy County Counsel, for defendant and respondent.
[23 Cal.App.3d 758] STEPHENS, Acting Presiding Justice.
The pertinent facts in this case are that Eugene Berry was an employee of the County of Los Angeles. At the time of his divorce from plaintiff (Elizabeth Berry), the community had $14,845.14 in the retirement fund. He was not at that time eligible to retire, and continued in active employment with the county until his death. At the time of death, he had a surviving spouse, Monica.
Pursuant to stipulation, the court, as part of the interlocutory judgment of divorce between the parties, had ordered:
'. . . In the event defendant (Eugene) elects to retire from his employment with the County of Los Angeles and accept a cash payment of monies in his retirement fund, defendant is ordered to pay one-half of the amount in said fund as of December 31, 1957, in the total amount of $7422.57, to the plaintiff (Elizabeth); in the event the defendant does not elect to take cash, as aforesaid, and shall elect to exercise one of the other options available [23 Cal.App.3d 759] under the County Retirement program, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to make its order respecting a fair and equitable distribution of the cash between defendant and plaintiff based upon the option exercised; . . ..'
It is apparent that Eugene did not elect to withdraw the funds, and the only 'election' he made was to substitute Monica for Elizabeth so far as designation of the spouse was concerned.
It is our opinion that the parties, Elizabeth and Eugene, by their stipulation which was carried verbatim into the judgment, elected to take the chance that Eugene would live to participate personally in retirement benefits; in this event, the court retained jurisdiction to order a proportion thereof to Elizabeth. It is also our opinion, as spelled out in Waite v. Waite (1972) 6 Cal.3d 461, 99 Cal.Rptr. 325, 492 P.2d 13, that the 'community interest' which was divisible by the divorce court was either the funds on deposit at the time of the divorce,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bettinger v. Bettinger, No. 19382
...the actual present value. E.g., Johnson v. Johnson, supra; Berry v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Retirement Ass'n, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 100 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1972); Duncan v. Duncan, 724 S.W.2d 231 (Ky.App.1987); Laffitte v. Laffitte, 232 So.2d 92 (La.App.1970); In re Matter of Marr......
-
Broadhead v. Broadhead, No. 86-110
...cash out the other spouse at his or her single election. See Berry v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Retirement Association, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 100 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1972), for exclusion by death, or Ball v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 30 Cal.App.3d 624, 106 Cal.Rptr. 662 (1973) as a g......
-
Kanta v. Kanta, No. 17371
...value. Id. See also Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ariz. 38, 638 P.2d 705 (1981); Berry v. Board of Retirement, Co. of L.A. Retire. Ass'n, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 100 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1972); Laffitte v. Laffitte, 232 So.2d 92 (La.App.1970); Richardson and Richardson, 307 Or. 370, 769 P.2d 179 (1989); Blo......
-
Marriage of Peterson, In re
...61, 473 P.2d 765.) (See also, In re Marriage of Jafeman, 29 Cal.App.3d 244, 261, 105 Cal.Rptr. 483; Berry v. Board of Retirement, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 759, 100 Cal.Rptr. Roy, however, contends that the trial court had no power to award Elizabeth one-half of his anticipated pension, because, o......
-
Bettinger v. Bettinger, No. 19382
...the actual present value. E.g., Johnson v. Johnson, supra; Berry v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Retirement Ass'n, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 100 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1972); Duncan v. Duncan, 724 S.W.2d 231 (Ky.App.1987); Laffitte v. Laffitte, 232 So.2d 92 (La.App.1970); In re Matter of Marr......
-
Broadhead v. Broadhead, No. 86-110
...cash out the other spouse at his or her single election. See Berry v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Retirement Association, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 100 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1972), for exclusion by death, or Ball v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 30 Cal.App.3d 624, 106 Cal.Rptr. 662 (1973) as a g......
-
Kanta v. Kanta, No. 17371
...value. Id. See also Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ariz. 38, 638 P.2d 705 (1981); Berry v. Board of Retirement, Co. of L.A. Retire. Ass'n, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 100 Cal.Rptr. 549 (1972); Laffitte v. Laffitte, 232 So.2d 92 (La.App.1970); Richardson and Richardson, 307 Or. 370, 769 P.2d 179 (1989); Blo......
-
Marriage of Peterson, In re
...61, 473 P.2d 765.) (See also, In re Marriage of Jafeman, 29 Cal.App.3d 244, 261, 105 Cal.Rptr. 483; Berry v. Board of Retirement, 23 Cal.App.3d 757, 759, 100 Cal.Rptr. Roy, however, contends that the trial court had no power to award Elizabeth one-half of his anticipated pension, because, o......