Kasper v. Kasper

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J. The husband appeals from portions of a judgment dividing community property and awarding attorney fees to the wife. We affirm.

[390]On November 12, 1975, the trial court entered an interlocutory decree of dissolution, reserving jurisdiction over child and spousal support, attorney fees and division of community property. On March 16, 1976, a final decree of dissolution was entered. On February 7, 1977, after a hearing, the trial court entered a supplemental judgment determining the matters reserved in the interlocutory decree. The husband has appealed; we affirm.

Although the notice of appeal is from the entire judgment entered on February 7, 1977, the briefs discuss only the division of community property and the award of attorney fees.

I

The parties owned a home with its furnishings, two automobiles, some personal property, stock, and an interest in the husband’s retirement fund.1 Insofar as is involved in the case at bench, the trial court awarded the full retirement rights to the husband and the home to the wife, with division of other assets to balance the values as found by the court.2

At the time of trial, the husband was 55 years of age, eligible to retire under his employer’s retirement plan but with an option to continue working for an additional 10 years. The trial court accepted a valuation of the retirement plan given by the wife’s expert, based on an actuarial method of valuation, The husband here contends that the actuarial method of valuation should not have been followed but that some other method of dividing the retirement benefits should have been adopted.

That it was within the power of the trial court to award the entire retirement benefits to the husband, balancing the value of that asset, so assigned, by giving an equal amount of community property to the wife, is clear in light of Phillipson v. Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 32 [89 Cal.Rptr. 61, 473 P.2d 765], where the Supreme Court said (at pp. 46-47);

“Finally, defendant contends that if pension rights are community property each spouse possesses an equal right in that property (Civ. Code, [391]