## Facts

- Patricia and David Morrison married in 1947 and separated in 1975 after a 28-year marriage.
- During the marriage, Patricia largely maintained the home and raised two children; she had limited work history and no marketable training.
- At dissolution, Patricia (age 54) worked part time earning about $100 per month and had a health condition that limited her energy and potential for full-time work; she reported monthly expenses of about $946.
- David (age 52) had retired from the military and worked in private industry; his gross monthly earnings were about $1,500 plus $394 in military retirement benefits, with net monthly income around $1,456.
- The trial court awarded Patricia $400 per month in spousal support for eight years, reserved jurisdiction to award additional support for three more years, and terminated jurisdiction after eleven years total.
- The trial court awarded Patricia a 42.5% interest in David’s vested military pension but did not determine any community interest in David’s nonvested pension rights under his current private employer’s plan.
- Patricia appealed the support termination date, the amount of support, and the failure to adjudicate the nonvested pension interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by terminating jurisdiction to award spousal support after eleven years in a long-term marriage where the supported spouse’s future self-sufficiency was uncertain.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting spousal support at $400 per month.
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to adjudicate the community property interest in the husband’s nonvested pension rights under his current employer’s plan.

## Decision

- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by terminating spousal support jurisdiction after eleven years because the record did not show, beyond speculation, that the wife would be self-supporting by that time.
- The court held the $400 monthly support amount was within the trial court’s discretion given the parties’ income and claimed expenses.
- The court held the trial court erred by not determining and dividing the community interest in the husband’s nonvested pension rights accrued during marriage.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- In a long-term marriage, a court generally should retain jurisdiction over future spousal support unless the record shows, with non-speculative evidence, that the supported spouse will be able to meet reasonable needs by a specified time.
- A time-limited termination of support jurisdiction based on a hoped-for improvement in employability, without evidentiary support, is an abuse of discretion.
- The amount of spousal support is reviewed deferentially and will be upheld if it falls within the bounds of reason on the record.
- Nonvested pension rights earned during marriage are deferred compensation and constitute community property to the extent attributable to marital efforts, requiring adjudication and division upon dissolution.

## Conclusion

The court required continuing support jurisdiction in a long-term marriage absent evidence the supported spouse would become self-sufficient, upheld the initial support amount as discretionary, and directed that nonvested pension rights accrued during marriage be treated and divided as community property on remand.


In re Marriage of Morrison, 573 P.2d 41 (Cal. 1978)