From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One
Oct 13, 1978
85 Cal.App.3d 511 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)

Opinion

Docket No. 16316.

October 13, 1978.

Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. DN-11522, Charles W. Froehlich, Jr., and Fiorenzo V. Lopardo, Judges.

COUNSEL

Hill, Farrer Burrill, Stuart H. Young, Jr., James G. Johnson and Reese L. Milner II for Defendant and Appellant.

Feist, Vetter, Knauf Loy and Raymond F. Feist, Jr., for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION


(1) 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 percent 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 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) 454 F. Supp. 22; Stone v. Stone (N.D.Cal. 1978) 450 F. Supp. 919; cf. Francis v. United Technologies Corp. (N.D.Cal. 1978) 458 F. Supp. 84). 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 (1975) 9 U.S.F.L.Rev. pages 635, 650.

Judgment affirmed.

Cologne, J., and Wiener, J., concurred.

Appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 20, 1978.


Summaries of

Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One
Oct 13, 1978
85 Cal.App.3d 511 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
Case details for

Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust

Case Details

Full title:EDITH J. JOHNS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RETIREMENT FUND TRUST OF THE…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One

Date published: Oct 13, 1978

Citations

85 Cal.App.3d 511 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
149 Cal. Rptr. 551

Citing Cases

Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust

The superior court ordered the Fund to pay half of each benefit payment directly to Edith. After this court…

In re Marriage of Baker

It is well established, however, that section 1144 does not preempt California community property law in…