Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Juddgreen2 sentences2023“The rationale for the use of the time rule was set forth in In re Marriage of Judd, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d 515 : ‘Where the total number of years served by an employee-spouse is a substantial factor in computing the amount of retirement benefits to be received by that spouse, the community is entitled to have its share based upon the length of service performed on behalf of the community in proportion to the total length of service necessary to earn those benefits. 2023“The rationale for the use of the time rule was set forth in In re Marriage of Judd, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d 515 : ‘Where the total number of years served by an employee-spouse is a substantial factor in computing the amount of retirement benefits to be received by that spouse, the community is entitled to have its share based upon the length of service performed on behalf of the community in proportion to the total length of service necessary to earn those benefits. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Gowangreen1 sentence2023The relation between years of community service to total years of service provides a fair gauge of that portion of the retirement benefits attributable to community effort.’ [Citation.] Using this rationale, courts have frequently used this method of determining the community’s interest where the amount of 8 the benefit is substantially related to the number of years of service rendered. [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Gowan (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 80, 88 (Gowan), italics added.) Once the maximum retirement benefit has been earned, further years of service are not included in the time rule form | 1 | 1 |
Oddino v. Oddinogreen2 sentences2007(Ibid.) Similarly, in 1997, some 17 years after the judgment in the instant case, the California Supreme Court, quoting from the 1983 interlocutory judgment of dissolution at issue in In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 72 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 566 , 939 P.2d 1266 ] (Oddino), made reference to “ ‘the formula in Brown.’ ” But there again, it is not apparent from that case or its holding, which had nothing to do with this reference in the underlying interlocutory judgment, that the court was endorsing the use of the time rule or equating that rule with the Brown decision. 21 And in 2001, t 2007(Ibid.) Similarly, in 1997, some 17 years after the judgment in the instant case, the California Supreme Court, quoting from the 1983 interlocutory judgment of dissolution at issue in In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 72 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 566 , 939 P.2d 1266 ] (Oddino), made reference to “ ‘the formula in Brown.’ ” But there again, it is not apparent from that case or its holding, which had nothing to do with this reference in the underlying interlocutory judgment, that the court was endorsing the use of the time rule or equating that rule with the Brown decision. 21 And in 2001, t | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Cobbgreen2 sentences1997(In re Marriage of Judd (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 515, 522 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 318 ]; In re Marriage of Cobb (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 855, 861 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 670 ].) The rationale for the use of the time rule was set forth in In re Marriage of Judd, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d 515 : “Where the total number of years served by an employee-spouse is a substantial factor in computing the amount of retirement benefits to be received by that spouse, the community is entitled to have its share based upon the length of service performed on behalf of the community in proportion to the total length of service necessary to 1997(In re Marriage of Judd (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 515, 522 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 318 ]; In re Marriage of Cobb (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 855, 861 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 670 ].) The rationale for the use of the time rule was set forth in In re Marriage of Judd, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d 515 : “Where the total number of years served by an employee-spouse is a substantial factor in computing the amount of retirement benefits to be received by that spouse, the community is entitled to have its share based upon the length of service performed on behalf of the community in proportion to the total length of service necessary to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Caverly v. Gray
green
1 sentence2013Contrary to Chad's contention, "Brown did not either establish or promote the use of the time rule, or any other specific formula, as a method for the ultimate pension division on the court's exercise of its retained jurisdiction." (In re Marriage of Gray (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 504, 519 .) The Gray court explained that the reference to the Brown formula in the parties' judgment in that case was reasonably interpreted as only an indication that at the time of the parties' judgment the court had determined the community had in interest in the husband's pension and had directed that community int | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bowen v. Bowen
green
1 sentence2007(Ibid.) Similarly, in 1997, some 17 years after the judgment in the instant case, the California Supreme Court, quoting from the 1983 interlocutory judgment of dissolution at issue in In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 72 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 566 , 939 P.2d 1266 ] (Oddino), made reference to “ ‘the formula in Brown.’ ” But there again, it is not apparent from that case or its holding, which had nothing to do with this reference in the underlying interlocutory judgment, that the court was endorsing the use of the time rule or equating that rule with the Brown decision. 21 And in 2001, t | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Marriage of Freiberg
green
2 sentences2007Within months of the Brown decision, In re Marriage of Freiberg (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 304 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 792 ] (Freiberg), 19 which had been remanded in Brown’s wake, was decided. 2007Within months of the Brown decision, In re Marriage of Freiberg (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 304 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 792 ] (Freiberg), 19 which had been remanded in Brown’s wake, was decided. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Marriage of Poppe
green
2 sentences1998The use of the time rule is not unreasonable when the "amount of the retirement benefits is substantially related to the number of years of service." ( In re Marriage of Poppe, supra, 97 Cal. App.3d at p. 8 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 500 ; accord, In re Marriage of Judd, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 522-523, 137 Cal.Rptr. 318 .) That is the case here. 1998The use of the time rule is not unreasonable when the "amount of the retirement benefits is substantially related to the number of years of service." ( In re Marriage of Poppe, supra, 97 Cal. App.3d at p. 8 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 500 ; accord, In re Marriage of Judd, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 522-523, 137 Cal.Rptr. 318 .) That is the case here. | 1 | 1998–1998 |