## Facts

- Alex de Carteret and Peggy de Carteret were married while Alex worked as a teacher and accrued an interest in a retirement fund.
- The retirement benefits earned during the marriage were community property to the extent based on marital service.
- In 1976, the parties divorced.
- The 1976 divorce decree did not mention or dispose of Alex’s retirement fund.
- In 1978, Peggy filed a separate lawsuit seeking judicial recognition and partition of her community interest in Alex’s retirement benefits.
- Alex defended on the grounds of res judicata and equitable estoppel, arguing the divorce decree should be treated as the final settlement of property rights.
- The trial court denied Peggy’s claim, finding the omission was inadvertent, concluding Peggy should have raised the retirement issue during the divorce, and noting Peggy had received a disproportionate share of community property in the divorce distribution.
- Peggy appealed from the judgment denying her any interest in the retirement benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether a former spouse may bring a post-decree action to recognize and partition a community interest in retirement benefits when the divorce decree did not dispose of the retirement asset.
2. Whether res judicata bars a post-decree claim to an omitted community asset that was not adjudicated in the dissolution proceeding.
3. Whether equitable estoppel prevents the nonemployee former spouse from asserting an interest in omitted retirement benefits based solely on the failure to raise the asset during the dissolution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Peggy’s claim and remanded.
- The court held that because the retirement fund was not disposed of in the divorce decree, Peggy could pursue an independent action to establish and partition her community interest.
- The court rejected Alex’s res judicata defense because the retirement asset was not litigated or decided in the dissolution decree.
- The court rejected equitable estoppel on the record presented; the omission and Peggy’s failure to raise the issue during the dissolution were not enough, by themselves, to prove the elements required for estoppel.
- The case was returned to the trial court for proceedings consistent with recognizing and dividing the community portion of the retirement benefits.

## Legal Principles

- Community property not disposed of in a dissolution decree remains jointly owned after the divorce and may be addressed in a later action for recognition and partition.
- Claim preclusion does not bar litigation over an omitted community asset when the dissolution judgment did not actually adjudicate that asset.
- Equitable estoppel requires proof of conduct inconsistent with the later claim, reasonable reliance by the other party, and resulting prejudice; mere omission of an asset from the dissolution proceedings, without more, is not sufficient.
- The fact that one spouse may have received a larger share of the property distributed in the decree does not, by itself, eliminate the other spouse’s ownership interest in a separate community asset that the decree failed to divide.

## Conclusion

De Carteret holds that when a divorce decree fails to address a community interest in retirement benefits accrued during marriage, the omitted asset remains subject to later judicial recognition and partition, and the nonemployee spouse’s post-decree claim is not barred solely by res judicata or equitable estoppel.


De Carteret v. De Carteret, 615 P.2d 513 (1980)