Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
439 U.S. 572 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Railroad Retirement Act's anti-assignment and anti-anticipation clause, 45 U.S.C. § 231m, preempts state community property law, thereby prohibiting state courts from awarding a non-employee spouse an interest in an employee's expected retirement benefits upon marital dissolution.
Facts:
- Jess H. Hisquierdo and Angela Hisquierdo were married in 1958 and separated in 1972.
- During their 14-year marriage, Jess worked for a railroad company and accrued retirement benefits under the federal Railroad Retirement Act (RRA).
- By the time of the divorce proceedings, Jess had over 30 years of service and an expectation of receiving RRA benefits upon reaching retirement age.
- In their California divorce proceeding, Angela Hisquierdo listed Jess's expected RRA benefits as community property, claiming she was entitled to a share attributable to the years they were married.
- Angela also had an expectation of receiving Social Security benefits from her own employment, but neither party claimed this was community property.
- The couple had no children and both waived their claims to spousal support.
Procedural Posture:
- Jess Hisquierdo filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Angela Hisquierdo in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
- The Superior Court, acting as the trial court, ruled that the expectation of receiving Railroad Retirement Act benefits was not community property.
- Angela Hisquierdo (appellant) appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Angela Hisquierdo (appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of California.
- The Supreme Court of California reversed the lower courts, holding that the benefits were community property and that federal law did not preempt the state's community property law.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 preempt a state's community property law, thereby preventing a state court from awarding a spouse an interest in a railroad employee's future retirement benefits upon divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the Railroad Retirement Act preempts state community property law. The Act's provision, § 231m, which prohibits benefits from being assigned, subject to legal process, or anticipated, is a direct enactment by Congress that overrides conflicting state law. The Court reasoned that awarding the non-employee spouse a future interest in the payments as they are received would violate the prohibition against 'legal process.' Furthermore, awarding the spouse an offsetting amount of other community property would violate the prohibition against 'anticipation' of benefits. The Court also noted that Congress had created a separate benefit for spouses that explicitly terminates upon divorce, indicating a deliberate congressional choice to exclude divorced spouses from the employee's benefits. This intent was further clarified by 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act that permit garnishment for alimony but expressly exclude community property divisions, drawing the same distinction as the Court did in Wissner v. Wissner.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No, the Railroad Retirement Act does not preempt California's community property law. Community property law establishes a system of co-ownership, meaning the respondent is not a creditor seeking to attach the petitioner's property but is asserting her existing ownership right in an asset acquired during the marriage. The anti-attachment provision, § 231m, is a standard spendthrift clause designed to protect benefits from creditors, not to define substantive marital property rights between spouses. An offsetting award of other assets does not interfere with the federal payment scheme or constitute an 'anticipation' of payment from the government, as it only divides the existing marital estate. Federal law should only override traditional state family law where Congress has spoken with 'force and clarity,' which it has not done in this Act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a specific federal statutory scheme for benefits can preempt state domestic relations law, a field traditionally reserved to the states. It establishes that anti-assignment and anti-anticipation clauses in federal benefit statutes are not merely procedural protections against creditors but can have substantive effect, overriding state property characterization. The case creates a significant distinction between property division claims and support claims (alimony/child support), with federal law being more likely to permit the latter to attach to federal benefits. This ruling requires family law practitioners in community property states to recognize that certain federally created assets are beyond the reach of state division rules, impacting how marital estates are valued and divided.
Unlock the full brief for Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo