Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edith R. JOHNS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RETIREMENT FUND TRUST OF the PLUMBING, HEATING & PIPING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant.
The respondent Edith J. Johns owned one-half of the retirement benefits listed under her husband's name (Civ.Code s 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 s 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.
GERALD BROWN, Associate Justice.
COLOGNE and WIENER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 16316
Decided: October 13, 1978
Court: Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)