Family Cases

Stinner v. Stinner 554 A2d 45; (Pa.,1989)

A case in which it was ruled that the dissolution court
should have enforced a writ pursuant to an order which
should have been qualified.

In re Abbata (N.D.N.Y., 1993) 157 Bankr 201.

Bankruptcy trustee can’t force AP to take a distribution in
order to receive her funds. Anti-alienation rule applies
to AP.


In re Marriage of Adams (1976) 64 Cal.App. 3d 181, 134

Cal.Rptr. 298 Hastings, J./DCA 2

Nonemployee spouse’s interest is properly based on the
ultimate retirement benefit, not the benefit accrued as of
date of separation.


In re Marriage of Allison (1987) 189 Cal.App 3d, 849, 234

Cal.Rptr. 671 Kingsley, Acting P.J./DCA2

Prior bifurcation of status will not defeat wife’s right to
survivor benefits from husband’s plan. (Court required
plan to start over and re-do option from retirement date,
when husband retired under option without wife’s consent or
court order.)

Court’s changing optional form of retirement chosen by
Husband via post retirement QDRO approved as long as
provision made to recoup any actuarially determined
overpayment.


In re Marriage of Anderson (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 36, 134

Cal.Rptr. 252 Allport, J./DCA 2

Time rule applied even though pension increased in value
after date of separation because early years should count
as much as later years.


In re Marriage of Andreen (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 667, 143

Cal.Rptr. 94 Friedman, Acting P.J./

In awarding pension to husband and house to wife, court
properly considered minor children and husband’s
misappropriation of community property.

Court may not award spouse a portion of disability pension
which non disabled employee may get in the future.

Pension divided based on final salary and not salary at
time of marriage separation.


In re Marriage of Baker (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 208, 251

Cal.Rptr. 126 King, J./DCA I

Because pension plan was joined and failed to discharge its
duty toward wife, fee order was justified and authorized by
both Civil Code Section 4370 and 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(g).

If a pension plan, which has been joined, pays out benefits
to an employee contrary to court order it is liable to
spouse for c/p share.


In re Marriage of Becker (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 65, 207

Cal.Rptr. 392 Kaufman, P.J./DCA 4

PERS survivor benefit taken in lieu of ordinary death
benefit by widow should be divided pro tanto between former
wife and member’s widow.


In re Marriage of Behrens (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 562, 187

Cal.Rptr. 200 Rouse, J./DCA 1

Court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees.

DC plan valued at date of separation plus increases in
value of assets then in account.


In re Marriage of Beltran
(1986) 183 Cal.App. 3d 292, 227 Cal.Rptr. 924 Newson,

J./DCA 1

Court may divide military retirement where marriage is less
than 10-years, however, direct payment by military can not
be ordered.


In re Marriage of Bergman (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 742, 214

Cal.Rptr. 661 King, J./DCA 1

Wife awarded $15,000, in part based on husband’s delaying
tactics and bad faith.

Disability payments are s/p until employee has right to
longevity payments. Poor health of employee merely a
factor for court to consider in determining whether to
order cash-out of pension.

Health of employee must be considered in determining value
of plan.

Court may not simply reserve jurisdiction. Must make a
present disposition, either by cash-out or in-kind
disposition.


Bowman v. Bowman (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 148, 217 Cal.Rptr.

174 Sonenshine, Acting P.J./DCA 4

Wife has interest in husband’s term life insurance policy
at time of divorce which was enforceable 13 years after
divorce.


In re Marriage of Briltz (1983) 141 Cal.App. 3d 17, 189

Cal.Rptr. 893 Caldercrt, P.JJDCA 1

Disability benefits held to be community property where
husband had right to early retirement pension which would
have paid more than he was receiving from disability.


In re Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.

Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561 Tobriner, J.

Non vested pension rights acquired during marriage are c/p
subject to division.


In re Marriage of Carnall (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1010, 265

Cal.Rptr. 271 Moore, J./DCA 4

Court may not require former spouse to be named as
employee’s surviving spouse, where that provision violates
terms of plan (despite Civil Code Section 4800.8)

However, if employee has a surviving spouse who qualifies
for the survivor benefit, the former spouse may claim an
interest in the survivor continuance benefit paid of the
surviving spouse.


In re Marriage of Castle (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 206, 225

Cal.Rptr. 382 Jones, J., by assign./DCA 4

Spouse may elect to receive benefits based on hypothetical
retirement as ofdate of trial or date of actual retirement,
not a date in between.


In re Marriage of Cohen (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 836, 164

Cal.Rptr. 672 Jefferson, J., by assign./DCA 2

Social security is not subject to division and cannot be
recognized by alternative provisions employing a set-off.


In re Marriage of Cohen (1992) 2 Cal.App. 4th 1570; 4 Cal.

Rptr.2d 323.

A separate-accounts scheme for awarding benefits to a
Nonemployee spouse is not mandated by the Judges Retirement
Law. (Note subsequent liberalizing amendments to JRL.)

Cf. Separate accounts arrangements under PERS and STRS.
Great care should be exercosed before choosing separate
accounts. Refer to Parkyn & DiFranza, Establishment of
Separate Accounts for PERS and STRS Members under Civil
Code Section 48,00.8, Family Law News, Summer 1990.


In re Marriage of Connolly (1979) 23 Cal.App.3d 590, 153

Cal.Rptr. 423

Court has considerable discretion in dividing community
property to assure an equitable division.

Division in kind not required.


Cormbleth v. Cormbleth (1989) 397 Pa. Super. 421,580

A.2d 369
Employee argued that part of civil service pension
should be excluded from marital estate due to hie
nonparticipation in Social Security. The court held for
the husband, inter alia because to the extent part of the
pension might figuratively be considered in lieu of a
Social Security benefit we believe that portion should be
exempted from the marital estate.


Coughlin v. Board of Administration (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d

70; 199 Cal.Rptr. 286

Strict application of statutes regarding statutory
beneficiary-designations may be inappropriate. Intent of
Legislature was to anticipate what employee would have done
if attentive – not to mandate.


In re Marriage of Cramer (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 73, 24a

Cal.Rptr.2d 372

Former spouse could remain beneficiary of elective survivor
continuance benefit under county plan because she was not
married to member at his death.


In re Marriage of Crook (1992) Cal.App.4d, Cal.Rptr.

2d,1992 DJDAR 1450

An express waiver required to waive Gillmore rights.


In re Marriage of Davis (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 485, 169

Cal.Rptr. 863 Brown, J./DCA 4

Time in reserves was not counted in time rule when it did
not count towards retirement pay.


In re Marriage of Emmett (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 753, 169

Cal.Rptr. 473 Title, J., by assign./DCA 2
Court may award husband pension even if c/p insufficient to award
offsetting assets to wife. In such a case, husband must
give wife promissory note to equalize property division.

In awarding pension to husband and house to wife, court
properly considered minor children and husband’s
misappropriation of community property.


In re Marriage of Fithian-1 (1974) 10 Cal.App.3d 592, 111

Cal.Rptr. 369 Mosk, J.

Military retirement earned during marriage is community
property.


In re Marriage of Fithian (Fithian-2) (1977) 74 CA3d 397,

141 CR 506

Court upheld contempt based on a failure to follow order in
Fithian-1.


In re Marriage of Forrest (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 850, 159

Cal.Rptr. 229 The Court/DCA 4

Right to reinstate a federal pension ~s not community
property. However, In re Marriage of Lucero [1981]
disagreed with Forrest.


In re Marriage of Foster (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 1068,

227 Cal.Rptr. 446 Kremer, P.J./DCA 4

Non-ee without remedy if ee leaves employment before
vested.


Fredericks v. Fredericks (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 875,

277 Cal.Rptr. 100

When parties have a second marriage and dissolution,
pension rights which accrued during the first marriage are
not an omitted asset in the second dissolution.


In re Marriage of Freiberg (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 304, 127

Cal.Rptr. 792 Coughlin, J. by assignment/DCA 4

When pension is divided in-kind, court may retain
jurisdiction to supervise payment of benefits.

Nonemployee spouse is entitled to share of pension based on
final benefits, not those as of date of separation.


Gemma v. Gemma 105 Nev. 458, 778 P.2d 429 (1989)

If jurisdiction is retained, the community interest is
determined using the “time rule” on the ultimate, actual
benefit. However, if the employee spouse can demonstrate
at retirement that the ultimate benefit is the result of
unusually post- separation efforts and not just
cost-of-living and promotional increases, the benefit can
be recalculated using the income the employee would have
received in the normal course of events.


In re Marriage of Gillmore (1981) 29 Cal.App.3d 418, 174

Cal.Rptr. 493 Bird, C.J.

Trial courts are encouraged to cash-out pension rights, if
feasible.

Nonemployee spouse may elect to begin receiving his/her
share of pension directly from employee spouse, if employee
spouse fells to retire.

Once Nonemployee spouse makes election to begin receiving
benefits, Nonemployee gives up increased payments in the
future due to increased age, longer service and higher
salary.


In re Marriage of Gorman (1979) 13 Cal.App.3d 454, 153

Cal,Rptr.479


In re marriage of Gram (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 859, 30

Cal.Rptr. 2d 792.

Because the enhanced early retirement option, crested and
offered by the pre- existing plan after the dissolution,
more closely resembled retirement than severance, the
community was able to share in the benefits. “It was a
part of, and intended to be, the realization of Allen’s
retirement expectation.” However, to be consistent with
what would have occurred if Allen had continued to work,
the additional service credit was assigned only to the
denominator in the time rule fraction – resulting in
additional service being separate property. However, the
former wife benefited from the additional years of imputed
age granted to the employee — community property.


In re Marriage of Hatch (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1213, 215

Cal.Rptr. 789 King, J./DCA 1

Cash-out may be preferable in short-term marriages.


In re Marriage of Hayden (1951) 124 Cal.App.3d 72, 177

Cal.Rptr. 183 Work, J./DCA 4

Upon remand, assets may be valued as of date of trial or as
of date of retrial.


Marriage of Henkle (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 97, 234 Cal.Rptr.
351 King, J./DCA 1

Once maximum benefits are earned, further employment not
considered.


Henn v. Henn (1980) 26 Cal.3d 323, 61 Cal.Rptr. 502 Bird, C.J.

Omitted assets may be dividend with a separate partition
suit.


Hearn v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund

(9th Cir., 1995) 68 F.3d 301

Where Participant denied being married and obtained single
life annuity on retirement, plan was required by the language
of 29 USC 1055 [Act ยง205] (c)(2)(A)(i) to provide a survivor
annuity to the after discovered spouse. The plan was allowed
to hold back payments from the widow until it had recouped
the amount overpaid to the Participant.


In re Marriage of Higinbotham (1968) 203 Cal. App. 3d

322, 249 Cal.Rptr. 798 Poche, J./DCA 1

Tax savings from disability pension are separate property.


In re Marriage of Hillerman (1980) 109 Cal.App. 3d 334,

167 Cal.Rptr. 240 Herelson, J. by assign./DCA 4

Social security benefits are separate property.


Huddleson v. Huddleson (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d 1564, 232

Cal.Rptr. 722 Rouse, J./DCA 1

Public policy favors division of omitted assets over
stability of judgments. 12 year delay not laches.

MSA provision awarding husband after-acquired property did
not amount to award of community property interest in
omitted pension.


Hummefl v. S.E. Rykoff & Co. (9th Cir., 1960) 634 F. 2d

446, 453

Sets forth criteria which may promote fee award under ERISA
502(g).


In re Marriage of Jacobson (1984) 161 Cal. App. 3d 465,

207 Cal. Rptr. 512 Stone, P.J./DCA 2

Gillmore applies to military pensions.

Non-ee spouse entitled to any cost-of-living increases
which would have occurred had he retired.


In re Marriage of Jensen (1991) 235 Cal. App.3d 1137, 286

Cal.Rptr. 911.

Court may not require that the plan pay W before H’s actual
retirement in non- ERISA plan. Cites civil Code 4800.8
(now Family Code Section 2610).


Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 113;

172 Cal.Rptr. 541

Held that former wife was a participant in the pension plan
who could bring an action in state court to recover
benefits under the plan, and to enforce and clarify her
rights. Awarded Wife fees under ERiSA 502(g) [2g U.S.C.
1132(g)]


Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust (1978) 85 Cal. App.3d 511

ERISA does not preempt California law. [citations] The
spendthrift features of ERISA are not applicable because
Edith is an owner, not a creditor.


In re Marriage of Johnston (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 900, g15

Appellate court reversed the granting of a plan’s request
to deduct administrative fees from benefits payable to both
the Participant and the Alternate Payee under a pre-REA
DRO.


In re Marriage of Jones (1975) 13 Cat.App. 3d 447, 119

Cal.Rptr. 108, 531 P.2d 420. Trbriner, J.

Disability is separate property until ee eligible for
longevity retirement.


In re Marriage of Judd (1977J 68 Cal.App.3d 515, 137 Cat.

Rptr. 318 Emerson, J., by assignment /DCA 1

Pension should be divided according to time rule.
Community gets benefit of post separation salary increases.


In re Marriage of Justice (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 82, 204

Cal.Rptr. 6 Lillie, Acting, P.J./DCA 2 Community entitled
to portion of disability retirement even when disability
retirement occurs before eligible for longevity pension.


Karem v. Commissioner (1993) 100 T.C. 34

Failure to get QDRO ahead of time meant QDRO of no help in
avoiding taxation to Participant for lump sum distribution.

Without QDRO, P was taxed for all of lump-sum distribution,
even W’s concededly community share, under former IRC
402(e)(4)(G).


In re Marriage of Kasper (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 388, 147

Cal.Rptr. 821 Kingsley, J.tDCA 2

Pension may be divided by determining actuarial value and
then awarding pension to employee spouse, with offsetting
assets to other spouse.


In re Marriage of Kelley (1976) 64 Cal.App. 3d 82, 134

Cal.Rptr. 259 Thompson, J., by assignment/DCA 2

Contributions to Social Security are not community
property.


Levy v. Office of Personnel Management (1990 CAFC) 902 F2d

1550

Federal disability – only longevity retirement portion
after age 62 is exposed to community property.


In re Marriage of Lionberger (1979) 97 Cal App 3d 56, 158

Cal Rptr 535 Alarcon, J./DCA 2

Pension apportioned by number of credits of earned.

Court may preclude employee’s electing joint and survivor
annuity for current spouse and thereby lowering former
spouse’s monthly benefits.


In re Marriage of Levingston (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1303.

State Court has concurrent jurisdiction and may qualify
orders. Federal court deferred to state court in awarding
fees before ruling on request in federal court.


In re Marriage of Lucero (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 836, 173

Cal. Rptr. 680 Tamufa, J./DCA 4

Right to redeposit contributions withdrawn from pension to
get increased benefits is a community property right.


In re Marriage of Luciano (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 956, 164

Cal.Rptr. 93 Hopper, J./DCA 5

Nonemployee spouse determines when s/he begins to receive
his/her share of matured pension, not employee spouse.


Mansell v. Mansell (1989) 490 U.S. 581, 104 L.Ed.2d 675,

109 S.Ct. 2023. Marshall, J.

Military disability benefits are separate property.

Court may divide disposable pay, not total retirement pay.


In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426, 181

Cal.Rptr. 910 Barry-Deal, J./DCA 1

Benefits must be valued as of date of trial, not date of
separation.


In re Marriage of Marx (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 552, 159

Cal.Rptr. 215 Hastings, J./DCA 2

Cash-out method supported to allow the Nonemployee spouse
to remain in the house with children.

May not discount value of pension because taxpayer will be
taxed when received. Future taxes too speculative.


In re Marriage of Mason (1979) 93 Cal.App. 3d 215, 155

Cal.Rptr. 350 Zenovich, J./DCA

Disability payments properly assigned to disabled employee
in absence of evidence of entitlement to retired pay.


In re Marriage of Mastropaolo (1982) 166 Cal.App.3d 953,

213 Cal.Rptr. 26 Kaufman, Acting P.J./DCA 4

Spousal support award too high with spouse also getting
part of pension.


McCarty v. McCarty (1981) 453 U.S. 210, 69 LEd.2d 589,

101 S.Ct.2728

Military retired or retainer pay held not divisible as
community property. Subsequently overruled by 10 U.S.C.
1408.


In re Marriage of Melton 6th, DCA, 9/29/94

Bad News| Judgment which divided pension and contained
description of the benefits cannot be expanded to include
benefits which increase by passage of time. Good News|
the benefit increases can be divided as an omitted asset.


In re Marriage of Modnick (1983) 33 Cal.App. 3d 897, 187

Cal.Rptr. 629, 663 P.2d Bird, C.J.

Concealment of assets is extrinsic fraud and grounds to
vacate judgment.


In re Marriage of Mueller (1977) 70 Cal.App. 3d 66, 137

Cal.Rptr. 129

Court must consider tax consequences of husband selecting
disability retirement over longevity retirement.


In re Marriage of Nice (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 444, 281 Cat.

Rptr. 415

Court may not order public plan to begin premature payments
to spouse of employee eligible to retire, when plan has no
provision to do so.

Plan may not be ordered to pay survivor benefits to wife
when not authorized by plan specification, but wife must
still be made whole.

Cash out of survivor benefits suggested. (O.K. to order
plan to pay wife her distdbute share of any survivor
benefits that became due under plan.)


In re Marriage of Nizenkoff (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 136, 135

Cal. Rptr. 189 Taylor, P.J./DCA

Social Security is separate property; to hold community
property would seriously interfere with express statutory
scheme of Social Security Act.


In re Marriage of Olivarez (1986) 188 Cal App 3d 336, 232

Cal Rptr 794 Danielson, J./DCA 2

Pension fund may be ordered to pay attorney fees from
husband’s share of pension credits. This does not violate
ERISA.


In re Marriage of Olivarez (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 113, 116

Attorney fees may be awarded from Husband’s share of plan
in this pre-ERISA case. Often mistakenly cited for
obtaining fees from plan.


In re Marriage of Pace (1982) 132 Cal. App. 3d, 183

Cal.Rptr. 314

Court should examine the particular retirement plan to
determine when the predominant purpose of the payment
becomes retirement support.


In re Marriage of Peterson (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 642, 115

Cal.Rptr. 184


Phillipson v. Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d

32, 89 Cal.Rptr. 61 Tobdner, J.

Preferable to award pension to employee spouse and
offsetting assets To Nonemployee.


In re Marriage of Poppe (1979} 97 Cal.App.3d 1, 158

Cal.Rptr. 500 Kaufman, J./DCA 4

Time used in the time rule must be time worked and not
elapsed time.


In re Potter (N.D.N.Y., 1993) 159 Bankr. 87?.

Even in a marital property state like New York, that, based
upon the award of the interest to the former spouse, the
former spouse’s right is a property right and not an
obligation of the debtor.


In re Marriage of Powers (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 826, 267

Cal.Rptr.350 Woods, P.J.tDCA 2

Terminable interest rule applied retroactively to benefit
estate of wife who died 4 years before husband’s retirement
(after divorce but before disposition order re Plan. Heirs
allowed to collect Ms. Powers share).


In re Marriage of Samuels (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 122, 158

Cal.Rptr. 38 Racanelli, P.J.IDCA 1

Disability payments separate property until longevity
retirement age, then community property.


In re Marriage of Saslow (1985) 40 Cal.App.3d 848, 221

Cal.Rptr. 546, 710 P.2d 346 Bird, C.J.

Benefits received from disability policy paid for with
community property must be characterized according to
purpose designed to serve.


In re Marriage of Scott (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 251,202

Cal.Rptr. 716 Work, J./DCA 4

Gillmore applies to military pensions.


In re Marriage of Shattuck (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 683, 184

Cal.Rptr. 698 Elkingten, J./DCA 1

Court should consider health in determining pension plan’s
value.


Shaver v. Shaver (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 788, 165

Cal.Rptr. 672 Allport, JJDCA 2

Pre-Brown unvested pension may not be divided later in Henn
action.


In re Marriage of Sheldon (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 371,

177 Cal.Rptr. 380 Wiener, J./DCA 4

Trial court determines interest rate to be used based on
credibility of experts.


In re Marriage of Siller (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 36, 46

It appears the recalcitrance of pension plans was a motive
for the amendment of section 4370. [Emphasis in original.]
See Family Code 2030 (a) and (d).


In re Marriage of Skaden (1977) 19 Cal.3d 679, 139

Cal.Rptr. 615, 566 P.2d 249 Sullivan, J., by assignment.


Smith v. Lewis (1975) 13 C3d 349, 118 Cal.Rptr. 641.


In re Marrfage of Stenquist II (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 430,
193 Cal.Rptr. 587


In re Marriage of Stenquist I (1978) 21 C3d 779, 148
Cal.Rptr. 779

Only excess of disability over longevity retirement is
separate property.


In re Stone SD, Cal, 1993) No. 03913-M13, CCH PPG 23,886 O.

A debtor was not required to borrow from a qualified
pension plan to fund her bankruptcy payment plan under the
Bankruptcy Code requirement that all projected disposable
income be applied to the payment plan because loans are not
considered income and the anti-alienation language in ERISA
plans excludes them from the property of the bankruptcy
estate.


Stone v. Stone 633 F2d 740 (1980)

Terminable interest rule applied retroactively to benefit
estate of W who died four years before H’s retirement,
Arguments against retroactivity rejected,


In re Marriage of Tammen (1976) 63 Cal.App. 3d 134, 134
Cal,Rptr. 161 Elkington, J./DCA 1

Interest rate for discounting should provide for the
inferiority of security, long and uncertain deferment of
its enjoyment, effect of inflation, and concerns of
ownership.


In re Marriage of Taylor (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 435, 234
Cal.Rptr. 488

Terminable interest rule abolished retroactively.


Taylor v, Taylor 541 N.E. 2d 55, 58, (1989)

Relying on the legislative history of REA held that an
attachment in a divorce case under that state’s general
civil procedure provisions would constitute a qualified
domestic relations order,


In re Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1249, 277
Cal.Rptr. 403

Husband’s presence in California due to military assignment
with intent to remain indefinitely in California does not
create jurisdiction to divide military pension.

Jurisdiction over military pension may be challenged in
Response which admits court has in personam jurisdiction
for purposes of making orders on other issues.


Estate of Undergraph (1962) 199 Cal. App. 2d 419, 18
Cal.Rptr. 591 Coughin, J,/DCA 4

Pension payments characterized by when pension earned, not
when received.


In re Marriage of Vetlinde (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 918, 234
Cal.Rpbt. 694 Evans J.IDCA 3

Cash-out value based on greater life expectancy of women
held constitutional. Female Mortality Tables may be used
to value a wife’s pension plan.


Waite v. Waite (1972) 6 Cal.3d 461, 99 Cal.Rptr. 325
Tobriner, J.

Terminable interest rule discussed.


In re Marriage of Webb (1979) 6 Cal.App.3d 335, 156
Cal.Rptr. 334 Scott, Acting P.J./DCA 1

Disability pension is separate property until employee
reaches normal retirement age, then community property
based on the time rule.


In re Marriage of White (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1022, 237
Cal.Rptr. 764 Klein, P.J./DCA 2

Income from pension which paying spouse received in
exchange for other assets is available for spousal support.


Worton v. Worton (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1638 286 Cal.Rptr.
410 Lillie, P.J./DCA 2

Independent action to recover over funded portion of
pension plan necessary where plan valued solely according
to accrued benefit.


In re Marriage of Ziegler (1989) 207 Cal.App. 3d 788, 255
Cal.App. 100

Survivor benefits can be awarded as part of a Spousal
support obligation.

Case properly removed to federal court, properly not
remanded, property transferred to another district.

Interesting and well-reasoned dissent.