Marriage of Martin, In re
Citation | 50 Cal.App.3d 581,123 Cal.Rptr. 634 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Margaret Anne MARTIN and Ford Nelson Martin. Civ. 14564. |
Decision Date | 11 August 1975 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
F. William Fennell, Sacramento, for appellant.
Donald E. Huckins, Yuba City, for respondent.
This is an appeal in a dissolution proceeding in which the appellant husband claims the court erred in declaring his military retirement benefits to be community property and subject to immediate division, although he had not then retired.
The appeal comes to us on an agreed statement pursuant to rule 6 of the California Rules of Court. The statement reflects that appellant was a Chief Master Sergeant in the Air Force. During 21 years of marriage and for three years prior to marriage, appellant had been in military service. He was eligible for retirement, but at the time of the dissolution proceeding, was still on active duty. Had appellant retired in 1972, the year of separation, he would have received $571.68 per month as retirement pay; $503.08 was the community portion of the retirement pay, and respondent's share would be $251.54.
Prior to trial, the parties agreed upon all issues framed by the pleadings with the exception of the division of the retirement pay. The trial court adopted the stipulation for division of property and payment of support and in the interlocutory judgment of dissolution ordered division of the military retirement pay as follows:
Appellant's sole contention is that payment to respondent of her share of his vested retirement with the military as a community asset should only begin upon his retirement.
The Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Fithian (1974) 10 Cal.3d 592, at page 596, 111 Cal.Rptr. 369, at page 371, 517 P.2d 449, at page 451, stated, (See also In re Marriage of Peterson (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 642, 649, 115 Cal.Rptr. 184.)
It is conceded by appellant that he was entitled to retire from the United States Air Force after 20 years of service. At the time of the hearing on the petition for dissolution, appellant had accumulated 24 years of service.
The court, in In re Marriage of Brown (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 188, 191, 103 Cal.Rptr. 510, 512, stated under these circumstances,
The appellant has completed the required number of years of service and is eligible for a pension. This fact is not in dispute. He need only apply for the pension benefits to receive them. The only condition to the payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Brown, In re
...the sweep of French, holding that a vested pension is community property even though it has not matured (In re Marriage of Martin (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 581, 584, 123 Cal.Rptr. 634; In re Marriage of Ward (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 150, 123 Cal.Rptr. 234; In re Marriage of Bruegl (1975) 47 Cal.App.......
-
Marriage of Hunt, In re
...or profit sharing interests are community property subject to division in a divorce proceeding. (E.g., In re Marriage of Martin (1975), 50 Cal.App.3d 581, 123 Cal.Rptr. 634.) This is significant, because section 503's definition of marital property, including its recognition of the value of......
-
In re Marriage of Gray
...military pension, which was proportionately divisible based on premarital versus marital years]; In re Marriage of Martin (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 581, 583-585,123 Cal. Rptr. 634 (Martin) [upon dissolution, wife was entitled to her proportionate share of husband's expected retirement benefit ba......
-
Farver v. Department of Retirement Systems
...re Marriage of Fithian, 10 Cal.3d 592, 599-600, 517 P.2d 449, 453-54, 111 Cal.Rptr. 369, 373-74 (1976); In re Marriage of Martin, 50 Cal.App.3d 581, 585, 123 Cal.Rptr. 634, 636 (1974); Bensing v. Bensing, 25 Cal.App.3d 889, 893, 102 Cal.Rptr. 255, 257 (1972), and to private pension plans, I......