Cir

Cir v. Dunkin

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 31, 200705-76004California4,237 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

John Dunkin and his former wife Julie married on August 26, 1967, separated on February 19, 1996, and were divorced on August 19, 1997. For most of this period and continuing until his retirement in 2002, John was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department (“L.A.P.D.”). As part of his L.A.P.D. compensation package, John participated in a defined benefit plan administered by the Los Angeles Board of Pension Commissioners (“pension board”). Under the plan, upon retirement, John was entitled to receive monthly pay- ments for life, based on the length of his service, his rank, and his monthly salary. As of May 19, 1989, John’s pension rights were fully vested and mature.2 The pension benefits earned 1 The record does not reveal whether Julie reported the $25,511 she received in 2000 as income. 2 Pension rights are “vested” where they would survive the discharge or voluntary termination of the employee. In re Marriage of Bergman, 214 Cal. Rptr. 661, 664 n.4 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). Such rights are “mature” where “all the conditions precedent to the payment of . . . benefits have taken place or are within the control of the employee.” Gillmore, 629 P. 2d at 3 n.2 (quotations…

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.