gno.law

Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 16316 · 1978-10-13 · Published · 85 Cal. App. 3d 511 · 149 Cal. Rptr. 551 · 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1993

EDITH J. JOHNS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RETIREMENT FUND TRUST OF THE PLUMBING, HEATING & PIPING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant

Area
civil
Panel
Janice R. Brown (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Brown

Opinion BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

The respondent Edith J. Johns owned one-half of the retirement benefits listed under her husband’s name (Civ. Code, § 5105). The retirement benefits were 100 percent community property and were entirely vested. Upon divorce the superior court ordered appellant Retirement Fund Trust to pay one-half the retirement directly to Edith. The former husband does not complain in the appeal but the fund does, saying, under federal preemption, it should pay the benefits solely to the husband, and Edith can take her chances collecting from him.

We find no impediment to the fund sending a monthly check to the half-owner Edith. In this day of computer technology, the burden on .the fund to make out two checks and envelopes, rather than one, is insignificant.

Edith has as much right to manage and control the community property as her former husband (Civ. Code, § 5125).

*513 We hold the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of Congress (ERISA) does not preempt California law as applied here in matrimonial matters (In re Marriage of Fithian, 10 Cal.3d 592, 597 [111 Cal.Rptr. 369, 517 P.2d 449];

In re Marriage of Sommers, 53 Cal.App.3d 509, 515 [126 Cal.Rptr. 220]; see Cody v. Riecker (E.D.N.Y. 1978) 454 F.Supp. 22;

Stone v. Stone (N.D.Cal. 1978) 450 F.Supp. 919; cf.

Francis v. United Technologies Corp.

(N.D.Cal. 1978) 458 F.Supp. 84). The spendthrift features of ERISA are not applicable because Edith is an owner, not a creditor. See Thiede, The Community Property Interest of the Non-Employee Spouse in Private Retirement Benefits (1975) 9 U.S.F. L.Rev. pages 635, 650.

Judgment affirmed.

Cologne, J., and Wiener, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 20, 1978.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by