Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry

85 Cal. App. 3d 511, 149 Cal. Rptr. 551, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1993
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 13, 1978
DocketCiv. 16316
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 85 Cal. App. 3d 511 (Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry, 85 Cal. App. 3d 511, 149 Cal. Rptr. 551, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1993 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

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).

*513 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re the Marriage of Baker
204 Cal. App. 3d 206 (California Court of Appeal, 1988)
In Re Marriage of Williams
163 Cal. App. 3d 753 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Zeda v. Williams
163 Cal. App. 3d 753 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Ohm v. Ohm
431 A.2d 1371 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1981)
Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust
117 Cal. App. 3d 113 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Mantor v. Mantor
104 Cal. App. 3d 981 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
In Re Marriage of Pilatti
96 Cal. App. 3d 63 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
In Re Marriage of Bastian
94 Cal. App. 3d 483 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
In Re Marriage of Campa
89 Cal. App. 3d 113 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 Cal. App. 3d 511, 149 Cal. Rptr. 551, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johns-v-retirement-fund-trust-of-plumbing-heating-piping-industry-calctapp-1978.