Legal Opinion
In Re Marriage of Smethurst
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 22, 1980No. Civ. 18572PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WIENER, J.
The muddy legal waters of missed pension plans in marital dissolution cases are clearing. We now know that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply where the omitted pension rights were vested and matured at the time of dissolution of the marriage. (H enn v. Henn (1980) 26 Cal.3d 323, 329-331 [161 Cal.Rptr. 502, 605 P.2d 10].) Presumably, the same rule would apply where the pension rights were vested only but not matured. We also know where the pension rights were nonvested at dissolution (see fn. 1 below) the limited retroactivity of In re Marriage of Brown (1976)…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Brown v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Henn v. HennCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- King v. Central BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bowman v. BowmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Ruchti v. GoldfeinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Huddleson v. HuddlesonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- California School Employees Ass'n v. Oakland Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Ruchti v. GoldfeinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980