## Facts

- Helen and Henry Henn married in 1945 and dissolved their marriage in 1971.
- The dissolution judgment incorporated a property settlement and ordered Henry to pay Helen $500 per month in spousal support until death of either party or Helen’s remarriage.
- At the time of dissolution, Henry was receiving a fully matured federal military retirement pension that had been earned in part during the marriage.
- The pension was not pleaded, listed, mentioned, or divided in the dissolution pleadings, settlement, or judgment; Henry conceded the dissolution court made no determination about it.
- In 1973, during post-judgment support proceedings, Helen sought an order to show cause regarding division of the pension as community property; the court denied the motion without stating reasons.
- About two and a half years later, Helen filed a new civil action seeking a determination of the community portion of the pension, an accounting of payments received, and division of that community share.
- Henry asserted res judicata (based on the dissolution judgment and the earlier motion denial) and equitable estoppel; the trial court ruled for Henry, and Helen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a former spouse may bring an independent action to establish and divide a community property interest in a military retirement pension omitted from the dissolution judgment.
2. Whether res judicata based on the dissolution judgment bars a later action concerning an undistributed asset not adjudicated in the dissolution.
3. Whether the unexplained denial of a prior post-judgment motion to divide the pension precludes the later independent action.
4. Whether equitable estoppel or waiver bars a spouse who knew of the pension during dissolution from later asserting a community property interest.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Henry and remanded.
- The court held Helen could pursue a separate action to establish and obtain her share of the community portion of Henry’s military pension because it was omitted and not adjudicated in the dissolution.
- The court held res judicata did not bar the action because the pension interest had not been litigated or necessarily decided in the dissolution judgment.
- The court held the prior denial of Helen’s motion, entered without explanation, did not establish a merits determination and did not support claim or issue preclusion.
- The court rejected equitable estoppel and waiver because knowledge of the asset and failure to raise it earlier, without intentional relinquishment or detrimental reliance, did not forfeit the community interest.

## Legal Principles

- Community property not adjudicated or distributed in a dissolution judgment remains subject to later adjudication, and former spouses hold the omitted asset as tenants in common.
- A former spouse may seek division of omitted community property through an independent action rather than setting aside the dissolution judgment.
- Claim and issue preclusion apply only to matters actually litigated or necessarily decided; a judgment silent as to an asset does not, by itself, adjudicate rights in that asset.
- An unexplained prior order denying relief does not support preclusion absent a showing that the denial resolved the substantive merits.
- Equitable estoppel or waiver requires more than mere knowledge and inaction; it requires intentional relinquishment or conduct inducing detrimental reliance.

## Conclusion

Because the military pension was omitted from the dissolution adjudication and the record did not show any prior merits determination or conduct supporting estoppel, Helen was permitted to bring an independent action to obtain division and accounting of the community portion of the pension.


Henn v. Henn, 605 P.2d 10 (Cal. 1980)