Woodward v. Woodward
| Decision Date | 03 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 117 Ariz. 148,571 P.2d 294 |
| Parties | Beverly Ann WOODWARD, Appellant, v. Eldon Delos WOODWARD, Appellee. 3241. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
In a decree of dissolution of marriage entered on April 22, 1975, the trial court refused to consider nonvested military retirement benefits as property. Beverly Woodward appeals from the judgment.
The Woodwards were married April 19, 1957, in Kansas. Appellee became an officer in the United States Air Force in July, 1957. The Woodwards remained domiciled in Kansas until 1972, when they changed their domicile to California. Eldon Woodward has since kept California as his domicile, but Beverly Woodward has been domiciled in Arizona since August, 1973.
At the time of the dissolution, Eldon Woodward had been in the Air Force for almost 18 years. He accrues percentage points towards his retirement which are related to his time in service. He is eligible to retire and to receive a pension when he has completed 20 years. He does not have to retire at that time, however, and is guaranteed 26 years of service before forced retirement.
Beverly Woodward contends that the trial court erred in failing to treat the military retirement benefits as community property and to divide them in the dissolution proceeding. She argues that she is entitled to one-half of the property interest represented by the retirement credits accumulated during the marriage.
Since the trial court entered its decree in this case, the Arizona Supreme Court, in Van Loan v. Van Loan, Ariz., 569 P.2d 214 (filed July 22, 1977), decided that the community acquires a property right in nonvested retirement benefits and that, to the extent that such property right is earned through community effort, it is divisible by the court upon dissolution of the marriage.
The trial court found that as a matter of law the military retirement benefits in this case were not property and, therefore, did not consider them in its division of community property. As Van Loan reaches the opposite conclusion, we must reverse and remand to the trial court for a proper disposition of the military retirement benefits.
The computation of the interests of the parties in this case involves a number of complex issues which we do not attempt to resolve as they are not before us on this appeal. See, e. g., Young, Community Property Deferred Compensation: Disposition of Military Retired Pay upon Dissolution of Marriage, 50 Wash.L.Rev. 505 (1977) and Simon, Toward a More Equitable Distribution of Pension Benefits, 3 Southern U.L.Rev. 51 (1976). Nevertheless, for the guidance of the trial court in dividing this property interest on remand, we shall briefly discuss some of these issues.
We state at the outset that there may well be more than one method or formula which the trial court can use in making a division of this property. For that reason we do not purport to announce a rule for the trial court to follow. The retirement benefits, when they are paid in the future, will have partially resulted from credits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...1, would normally supersede the Restatement's choice of law rule and convert his earnings into community property, Woodward v. Woodward, 117 Ariz. 148, 571 P.2d 294 (App.1977), he argues that Arizona law should not apply where only one of the parties is domiciled in this state. In support o......
-
Bugh v. Bugh, 1
...there is a community property interest in the earnings. Van Loan v. Van Loan, 116 Ariz. 272, 569 P.2d 214 (1977); Woodward v. Woodward, 117 Ariz. 148, 571 P.2d 294 (App.1977); Provinzano v. Provinzano, 116 Ariz. 571, 570 P.2d 513 (App.1977). As discussed earlier, workmen's compensation is b......
-
In re the Marriage Of: Erroll Payne Palmer, 1 CA-CV 09-0413
...1038, 1039, 1044 (1988) (A.R.S. § 25-318(A) applies even when only one spouse is domiciled in Arizona); see also Woodward v. Woodward, 117 Ariz. 148, 150, 571 P.2d 294, 296 (App. 1977) (section 25-318(A) supersedes the usual conflict of laws rule that the court looks to the domicile of the ......
-
Marriage of Jacobs, In re
...897 (1965), relating specifically to dissolution or separation proceedings; and A.R.S. § 25-318 discussed in Woodward v. Woodward, 117 Ariz. 148, 571 P.2d 294 (Ariz.App.1977). These statutes seem to resolve the issue. Washington has no such ...