Brown v. Brown
15 Cal. 3d 838, 544 P.2d 561, 94 A.L.R. 3d 164 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Pension rights, whether vested or nonvested, are a form of property, not a mere expectancy. To the extent that such rights are earned during marriage, they constitute a community asset subject to division upon dissolution.
Facts:
- Gloria and Robert Brown married on July 29, 1950.
- Robert Brown was employed by General Telephone Company, which maintained a noncontributory pension plan.
- Under the plan, an employee's right to benefits depended on accumulating a certain number of 'points' based on age and years of service.
- An employee who was discharged before accumulating 78 points would forfeit all pension rights.
- The couple separated in November 1973.
- At the time of separation, Robert had accumulated 72 points, which was not enough for his pension rights to be considered 'vested'.
- A substantial portion of the 72 points was attributable to his employment during the marriage.
- Robert was projected to accumulate the 78 points required for vesting on November 30, 1976, approximately two years after the separation.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria and Robert Brown's marriage was dissolved in a California superior court (trial court).
- In the interlocutory judgment of dissolution, the trial court held that Robert's nonvested pension rights were not community property, relying on the precedent set by French v. French.
- The trial court divided the remaining community property and awarded Gloria alimony.
- Gloria, the appellant, appealed from the portion of the judgment declaring that Robert's pension rights were not divisible community property.
- The case was granted a hearing before the Supreme Court of California to reconsider the viability of the French v. French rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are nonvested pension rights acquired during a marriage community property subject to division in a dissolution proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, nonvested pension rights are community property subject to division. The court overruled its prior decision in French v. French, which held that nonvested pension rights were a 'mere expectancy' and not divisible property. The court reasoned that pension benefits are not a 'beneficence of the employer' but a form of deferred compensation and a contractual right. A contractual right, even if contingent upon future events like continued employment, is a form of property, not an expectancy. To hold otherwise results in an inequitable division of community assets, as it would award a valuable asset earned through community effort entirely to one spouse based on the 'whimsical' timing of the dissolution. The court suggested methods for division, such as determining the present value of the nonvested rights or, if valuation is too uncertain, awarding the nonemployee spouse a share of each payment as it is received in the future.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered California community property law by overruling 35 years of precedent set by French v. French. By reclassifying nonvested pension rights from a mere 'expectancy' to a divisible 'contingent interest in property,' the court significantly expanded the scope of what constitutes community property. This holding ensures a more equitable distribution of marital assets, reflecting the modern understanding of pensions as a critical form of deferred compensation earned through the joint efforts of the community. The decision has had a profound impact on divorce proceedings, requiring courts and attorneys to value and divide these complex and previously ignored assets.
