## Facts

- Husband, an active-duty U.S. Navy servicemember domiciled in Iowa, was stationed in California; wife resided in California; the marriage lasted about 15 years and produced two minor children.
- Wife filed in California for legal separation and requested temporary support and injunctive relief.
- Husband moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens and argued he did not consent to legal separation; he also had an Iowa dissolution proceeding.
- The parties executed a handwritten stipulation providing that wife would take her percentage interest in husband’s Navy pension when he first became eligible to retire at 20 years, and husband would dismiss the Iowa dissolution action with prejudice and have the case resolved in California under California law.
- The parties later signed a second stipulation expressly reserving California court jurisdiction over husband’s military pension.
- In 1983, husband became eligible to retire and receive military retired pay but remained on active duty and did not retire.
- The trial court bifurcated and decided (1) characterization/division of the Navy retirement benefits and (2) characterization/division of wife’s medical malpractice recovery.
- The court awarded wife $602.71 per month beginning January 27, 1983, as her community-property share of the military retirement benefits, and awarded wife most of the personal injury proceeds as largely her separate property.

## Issues

1. Whether California had jurisdiction and could apply California law to characterize and divide husband’s military retirement benefits despite his Iowa domicile.
2. Whether California could treat the military pension as community property rather than preserving an Iowa separate-property characterization based on due process or full faith and credit.
3. Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1408) barred an order requiring payments to the nonmember spouse once the member is eligible to retire but continues active service.
4. Whether the court was required to allocate more of the pension to husband to “equalize” the property division in light of wife’s personal injury recovery.
5. Whether the trial court correctly calculated wife’s community share of the pension.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full.
- California could apply its community-property law to the military pension because husband expressly agreed to litigate in California under California law and California had substantial connections to the dispute.
- The military retirement benefits attributable to service during marriage were properly treated as community property under California law.
- Under Gillmore, wife was entitled to receive her share when husband became eligible to retire, even though he chose to remain on active duty; the USFSPA did not prohibit this result.
- The court was not required to reallocate the pension to offset wife’s largely separate-property personal injury proceeds.
- The trial court’s time-rule calculation of the community interest and wife’s share was upheld, including the $602.71 monthly payment order.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse may consent to California jurisdiction and choice of law for marital property adjudication, and such consent supports application of California community-property rules when California has meaningful contacts with the marriage and parties.
- In California, retirement benefits earned during marriage are community property to the extent attributable to marital service, commonly measured by the time rule and divided equally as to the community portion.
- Under Gillmore, when the employee spouse is eligible to retire and begin drawing benefits, the nonemployee spouse may obtain immediate payment of the nonemployee’s share; the employee spouse cannot postpone that share by continuing employment.
- The USFSPA authorizes state treatment of disposable retired pay as marital property under state law and does not, by itself, bar state orders tied to eligibility to retire rather than actual retirement.
- A trial court may award a spouse a large portion of a personal injury recovery as separate property while still awarding the other spouse a community share of pension benefits; there is no automatic requirement to “equalize” separate and community allocations by shifting community pension interests.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a California dissolution order applying California community-property law to a Navy pension based on the parties’ stipulations and California’s connections to the dispute, permitted Gillmore-style payments upon retirement eligibility notwithstanding continued active service and the USFSPA, and upheld the trial court’s handling of a separate-property personal injury recovery without reallocating community pension interests for offsetting purposes.


In re Marriage of Jacobson, 161 Cal. App. 3d 466, 207 Cal. Rptr. 512 (Ct. App. 1984)