Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust
| Citation | 85 Cal.App.3d 511,149 Cal.Rptr. 551 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1978 |
| Parties | Edith R. JOHNS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RETIREMENT FUND TRUST OF the PLUMBING, HEATING & PIPING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 16316. |
Hill, Farrer & Burrill by Stuart H. Young, Jr., and Reese L. Milner, II, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
Feist, Vetter, Knauf & Loy by Raymond F. Feist, Jr., Oceanside, for plaintiff and respondent.
The respondent Edith J. Johns owned one-half of the retirement benefits listed under her husband's name (Civ.Code § 5105). The retirement benefits were 100% Community property and were entirely vested. Upon divorce the superior court ordered appellant Retirement Fund Trust to pay one-half the retirement directly to Edith. The former husband does not complain in the appeal but the Fund does, saying, under Federal preemption, it should pay the benefits solely to the husband, and Edith can take her chances collecting from him.
We find no impediment to the Fund sending a monthly check to the half owner Edith. In this day of computer technology, the burden on the Fund to make out two checks and envelopes, rather than one, is insignificant.
Edith has as much right to manage and control the community property as her former husband (Civ.Code § 5125).
We hold the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of Congress (ERISA) does not preempt California law as applied here in matrimonial matters (In re Marriage of Fithian, 10 Cal.3d 592, 597, 111 Cal.Rptr. 369, 517 P.2d 449; In re Marriage of Sommers, 53 Cal.App.3d 509, 515, 126 Cal.Rptr. 220; see Cody v. Riecker, D.C., 454 F.Supp. 22; Stone v. Stone, D.C., 450 F.Supp. 919; Cf. Francis v. United Technologies Corp., --- F.Supp. ----, N.D.Cal. Sept. 19, 1978). The spendthrift features of ERISA are not applicable because Edith is an owner, not a creditor. See Thiede "The Community Property Interest of the Non-Employee Spouse in Private Retirement Benefits," 9 University of San Francisco Law Review (1975), pp. 635, 650.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Baker, In re, A038122
...980-982, affd. (9th Cir.1980) 632 F.2d 745, cert. den. 453 U.S. 922, 101 S.Ct. 3159, 69 L.Ed.2d 1004; Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 511, 513, 149 Cal.Rptr. 551; In re Marriage of Johnston (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 905-912, 149 Cal.Rptr. 798; In re Marriage of Campa (19......
-
Marriage of Campa, In re
...(1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 149 Cal.Rptr. 798, which was published after our opinion was prepared, and Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 511, 149 Cal.Rptr. 551, which answers the question summarily.In Stone v. Stone (N.D.Cal.1978) 450 F.Supp. 919, the U.S. District Court als......
-
Ohm v. Ohm
...113, 152 Cal.Rptr. 362 (1979), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1028, 100 S.Ct. 696, 62 L.Ed.2d 664 (1980); Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust, 85 Cal.App.3d 511, 149 Cal.Rptr. 551 (1978), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1028, 100 S.Ct. 696, 62 L.Ed.2d 664 (1980). Such dismissals are view......
-
Marriage of Williams, In re
...152 Cal.Rptr. 362; In re Marriage of Johnston (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 911-913, 149 Cal.Rptr. 798; Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 511, 513, 149 Cal.Rptr. 551.) In the seminal case of In re Marriage of Campa, supra, the court focused upon the purpose of ERISA in refusin......
-
How Community Property Jurisdictions Can Avoid Being Lost in Cyberspace
...supra note 22 , at 263–64. 76. Compare In re Marriage of Brown, 544 P.2d 561, 568 (Cal. 1976), with Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust, 149 Cal. Rptr. 551 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). 77. See S PAHT & MORENO, supra note 5, § 5.3, at 359; Oldham, supra note 64 , at 115–17. 78. See Oldham, supra note 64......