## Facts

- In 1938, Winifred Berle (wife) and Charles Berle (husband) married in New Jersey, a common-law (separate-property) state for marital property.
- The couple lived in New Jersey until 1971.
- During the marriage, the parties acquired securities and bank accounts that were held in the husband’s name.
- Under New Jersey law, the securities and accounts were characterized as the husband’s separate property.
- In 1971, the husband left the wife and moved to Idaho, a community-property state.
- The husband obtained a default judgment dissolving the marriage in Idaho.
- The wife later sued the husband in Idaho seeking division and distribution of the securities and bank accounts, alleging they were accumulated during the marriage through the efforts of one or both spouses.
- The trial court granted the husband’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that (1) the assets were the husband’s separate property under New Jersey law and (2) under Idaho law, separate property was not divisible in a divorce, so the wife could not obtain a share.
- The wife appealed, challenging the trial court’s refusal to allow any division of the property acquired while the parties were domiciled in New Jersey.

## Issues

1. In an Idaho divorce-related property action, may an Idaho court treat as divisible marital acquisitions obtained while the spouses were domiciled in a common-law state, even though that state would classify the assets as the acquiring spouse’s separate property?
2. Did the trial court err by granting judgment on the pleadings based solely on the New Jersey classification and Idaho’s general rule against dividing separate property?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the judgment on the pleadings and remanded.
- The court held that Idaho’s divorce-property statute gives Idaho courts authority to equitably divide property accumulated by the efforts of either or both spouses during marriage, even if it was acquired while the couple lived in a common-law state that would treat it as the acquiring spouse’s separate property.
- Because the wife alleged that the securities and bank accounts were accumulated during the marriage from marital efforts, her pleadings were sufficient to proceed; the matter should not have been terminated at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A forum state may apply its own divorce property-division statute to reach a fair allocation of property before the court when the spouses divorce in that forum.
- Property labeled “separate” under a common-law state’s marital property system is not automatically immune from consideration in a later divorce in a community-property state; the forum may treat such property as subject to division when it reflects marital accumulation.
- For migrating spouses who acquire assets in a common-law state and later divorce in a community-property state, the divorce forum may treat “community-type” marital acquisitions as divisible based on the forum’s statutory authority.
- Judgment on the pleadings is improper when, taking the nonmoving party’s allegations as true, the complaint states a legally recognized basis for relief under the forum’s divorce property-division rules.

## Conclusion

Berle v. Berle holds that Idaho courts are not bound to deny division of marital acquisitions merely because the assets were earned and titled in a common-law state that would classify them as one spouse’s separate property; instead, Idaho may apply its divorce property-division statute to consider an equitable distribution, making judgment on the pleadings improper and requiring remand for further proceedings.


Berle v. Berle, 546 P.2d 407 (1976)