Brown v. Brown
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
Since French v. French (1941) 17 Cal.2d 775, 778 [112 P.2d 235, 134 A.L.R. 366], California courts have held that nonvested pension rights are not property, but a mere expectancy, and thus not a community asset subject to division upon dissolution of a marriage. Two years ago we granted a hearing in In re Marriage of Wilson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 851 [112 Cal.Rptr. 405, 519 P.2d 165], to reconsider “the current viability of the rule of French v. French” (10 Cal.3d at p. 853), but upon examination of the record in Wilson we discovered that the French issue had been waived by the…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Kern v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Westbrook v. MihalyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by145 opinions
- In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Steven A. v. Rickie M.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Cearley v. CearleyTexas Supreme Court · 1976
- Peterson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
140 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.