In re Marriage of Brown
544 P.2d 561, 15 Cal. 3d 838 (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 such rights are earned during marriage, they constitute a community asset subject to division upon dissolution.
Facts:
- Gloria Loucille Brown and Robert William Brown were married on July 29, 1950.
- During the marriage, Robert worked for General Telephone Company, which provided a noncontributory pension plan.
- Under the plan, an employee's right to benefits became 'vested' upon accumulating 78 points, which were based on a combination of age and years of service.
- If an employee was discharged before accumulating 78 points, all pension rights were forfeited.
- The couple separated in November 1973, after more than 23 years of marriage.
- At the time of separation, Robert had accumulated 72 points under the pension plan, six points short of the number required for the pension to vest.
- A substantial portion of the 72 points Robert had accumulated were attributable to his employment during the marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria Brown initiated a dissolution proceeding against Robert Brown in the superior court, which acted as the trial court.
- At trial, the court ruled that Robert's nonvested pension rights were his separate property and not subject to division as a community asset, relying on the precedent set by French v. French.
- The trial court entered an interlocutory judgment dividing the other community property and awarding Gloria alimony.
- Gloria Brown (Appellant) appealed from the portion of the judgment that declared the nonvested pension rights were not community property.
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 marriage divisible as community property upon dissolution?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes. Nonvested pension rights are a form of property, not a mere expectancy, and are therefore divisible as community property upon dissolution. The court overruled its prior decision in French v. French, which held that nonvested pension rights were a 'mere expectancy' and not a community asset. The court reasoned that pension benefits are not a gift or gratuity from the employer, but a form of deferred compensation earned by the employee. As such, they are a contractual right and a form of property. The fact that the right is contingent upon future events, such as continued employment, does not degrade it from property to an expectancy. Treating nonvested pensions as community property is necessary to ensure the equitable division of assets acquired through community effort, as pensions often represent one of the most significant marital assets.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally changed California community property law by overruling 35 years of precedent established by French v. French. By reclassifying nonvested pension rights from a 'mere expectancy' to a 'contingent property interest,' the court significantly broadened the scope of divisible community assets. This ruling recognized the increasing economic importance of pension benefits and ensured a more equitable distribution of marital wealth earned through joint effort. The decision created a new standard for family law practitioners, requiring them to identify, value, and divide these previously indivisible assets, thereby promoting fairness in dissolution proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for In re Marriage of Brown