## Facts

- Alwayne Fransen (wife) and Arnold Fransen (husband) married in 1943 and separated in 1966 while living in Oregon.
- Wife traveled to California to visit her daughter; husband told her he wanted a divorce, and she remained in California.
- Husband moved to Idaho and obtained a divorce there; wife did not appear and did not submit to Idaho personal jurisdiction.
- The Idaho decree dissolved the marriage but did not adjudicate property or support rights.
- After husband later moved to California, wife filed a California proceeding seeking spousal support and division of community property, including the military retirement pension.
- The trial court ruled it could treat only the portion of the pension earned during the parties’ California residence as community property; finding California residence was about 10% of the marriage, it awarded wife 5% of the pension (half of 10%).

## Issues

1. Whether the Idaho ex parte divorce decree barred a later California adjudication of spousal support and property division, including the military pension.
2. Whether the trial court erred by limiting the community share of the military pension to the period the parties resided in California rather than the period of service during marriage.
3. Whether spousal support must be determined by considering the full set of statutory factors rather than need alone.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that California had jurisdiction to adjudicate economic issues despite the Idaho decree.
- The court reversed the pension division to the extent it was based on apportionment limited to years of California residence.
- The case was remanded to recalculate the community share of the pension using a service-time fraction reflecting service during marriage over total service.

## Legal Principles

- Under divisible divorce doctrine, a foreign ex parte divorce obtained without personal jurisdiction over the nonappearing spouse terminates marital status but does not bind that spouse on support or property rights.
- Full faith and credit requires recognition of the marital-status termination, but does not require treating the ex parte decree as a final determination of economic rights.
- Military retirement benefits are deferred compensation; the community interest is measured by the portion earned during marriage, regardless of the spouses’ state of residence when the service was performed.
- Pension division generally applies a time rule: service during marriage divided by total service, with the community share then subject to equal division absent a contrary rule.
- In setting spousal support, the court must consider statutory factors and may not base the award solely on need.

## Conclusion

The court held that an ex parte foreign divorce dissolved the marriage only and did not prevent California from deciding support and property division; it further held that a military pension must be apportioned by service performed during marriage, not by where the spouses lived, and remanded for recalculation of the wife’s community share.


In re Marriage of Fransen, 142 Cal. App. 3d 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)