 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Main2/13/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
J.D. Main (husband) appeals from the judgment resolving property, custody, and child support issues following the dissolution of his marriage to respondent Debra Main (wife). He challenges the trial court's determination that a portion of his disability pension benefits was community property. We reject his contentions and affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Husband and wife were married in 1980. In June of 1981, husband began working for the California Department of Corrections. He left his position in August of 1983 after 2.2 years of service and received a refund of the retirement contributions he made in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Husband did not thereafter redeposit those funds to buy back rights to that 2.2-year period for purposes of increasing his retirement benefits. In January of 1987, husband again went to work for a state agency. He continued to work for the state and contribute to the CalPERS system until August of 1994.
In August of 1994, husband began receiving an industrial disability retirement benefit from CalPERS. The record on appeal does not reveal the nature of his disability. When he began receiving the disability benefits, his retirement benefits with CalPERS were not yet fully vested and he did not thereafter return to work for the state during the marriage. After he had received disability benefits for six years, the parties separated in August of 2000.
Husband petitioned for divorce and, after the divorce was granted, the case proceeded to trial on the issues of custody, child support , and property division. The property issues in dispute concerned how to (1) allocate the parties' significant credit card debt; (2) value the equity in the parties' residence; and (3) value the community property interest in husband's disability retirement benefits. At trial, wife presented the testimony of Ronald G. Reddall, a forensic economist, to offer an opinion as to the community property value of husband's disability benefits.
Reddall testified that, in order to determine the community interest in husband's disability pension, California law required him to compare the value of husband's disability pension with the value of the longevity retirement benefits he would have received had he elected to retire instead of accept a disability pension. Reddall considered a letter from CalPERS membership services advising that when husband retired in 1994, at the age of 45.50, he had accrued a total of 7.589 years of service as follows: 4.588 years credited under the first-tier retirement formula at 2 percent per year of service at age 55, and 3.001 years of service with another agency credited under the second-tier formula at 1.25 percent per year of service at age 65. Because tier-two benefits did not vest until 10 years of service, husband was eligible in 1994 to receive only first-tier benefits. Thus, CalPERS advised that when husband reached the age of 50, he would be eligible to receive $246.36 per month based on 4.588 years of service. He would not be eligible to receive any amount for the 3.001 years of service credited under the second-tier benefits.
Reddall testified that under In re Marriage of Justice (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 82 (Justice), and In re Marriage of Lucero (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 836 (Lucero), he was allowed to consider the value of retireme
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|