Simundza

INTRODUCTION

Barbara A. Simundza and Richard J. Simundza 1 entered into a stipulated marital dissolution judgment under which Barbara agreed to accept the sum of $200 from Richard’s monthly pension benefit for 12 years following his *1515 retirement. Barbara contends the value of the pension benefit has increased since the parties entered into the stipulated judgment in 1983, and thus the pension benefit was only partially divided in the judgment. Relying on In re Marriage of Melton (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 931 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 761 ] (Melton), she filed a motion to further divide the pension benefit which she argued constituted a partially omitted asset within the meaning of Family Code section 2556. 2 (All further statutory references are to the Family Code.) The trial court denied her motion and she appealed.

We conclude there is no partially omitted asset within the meaning of section 2556 because nothing in the stipulated judgment suggested Barbara was entitled to anything more than the agreed-upon flat amount. Melton, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th 931 is factually and materially distinguishable from this case. In Melton , the stipulated judgment provided the wife would…