Brown

Since French v. French (1941) 17 Cal.2d 775, 778 [ 112 P.2d 235 , 134 A.L.R. 366 ], California courts have held that nonvested pension rights are not property, but a mere expectancy, and thus not a community asset subject to division upon dissolution of a marriage. Two years ago we granted a hearing in In re Marriage of Wilson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 851 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 519 P.2d 165 ], to reconsider “the current viability of the rule of French v. French” ( 10 Cal.3d at p. 853 ), but upon examination of the record in Wilson we discovered that the French issue had been waived by the nonemployee spouse. Properly raised in the present case by appellant Gloria Brown, the issue of division of nonvested pension rights upon dissolution of a marriage again confronts this court.

Upon reconsideration of this issue, we have concluded that French v. French should be overruled and that the subsequent decisions which rely on that precedent should be disapproved. As we shall explain, the French rule cannot stand because nonvested pension rights are not an expectancy but a contingent interest in property; furthermore, the French rule compels an inequitable division of rights acquired…