Marriage of Bonner CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2022D078148California17,630 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Terence and Candy were married in March 1978. On August 30, 2012, Candy filed a petition for dissolution, in which she alleged August 29, 2012, as the date of separation. In January 2014, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution as to the parties’ marital status only. Terence is retired from employment with an agency of the federal government, where he worked from May 1978 until May 2010. Since retirement, Terence has received a federal pension, but he did not share the pension with Candy for the first two years after separation. In July 2014, in response to a request filed by Candy, the trial court ordered Terence to pay

Candy half of his pension on a going forward basis.3 A domestic relations order (DRO) was created to implement the division. Terence made direct payments to Candy for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy’s pension. During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon…

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.