In Re Marriage of Stier

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 3d 42·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2633·223 Cal. Rptr. 599
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1986D002015California5,370 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kremer, J.

Nine years after her divorce, Darlene Clara Stier brought an action against her former husband, Larry Carl Stier, to reduce underpayment of her interest in his military retired pay to judgment. The trial court determined Darlene did have a one-half community property interest in Larry’s retired pay, but applied the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (FUSFSPA) to limit Darlene’s interest in a part of the retirement benefits. Both Darlene and Larry appeal, respectively arguing the rule of In re Marriage of Stenquist (Stenquist I) (1978) 21 Cal.3d 779 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 582 P.2d 96 ], and the mandate of FUSFSPA should apply to all of Larry’s military retired pay. We find applying either authority retroactively affects long-settled property rights and, for the reasons discussed herein, is unwarranted. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Factual and Procedural Background

On June 15, 1973, the dissolution of Larry and Darlene’s marriage was tried. The next day, the United States Marine Corps, in accord with 10 United States Code section 1202, transferred Larry from active duty to a 40 percent temporary disability retirement. At that time, he had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.