In Re Marriage of Stenquist

Summary

Husband retired after 26 years of Army service, married for most of it, and elected 75 percent disability pay instead of 65 percent retirement pay. The Supreme Court held that the pre-marital portion and the excess of disability pay over the retirement pay he would have received are his separate property, while the retirement-equivalent portion earned during marriage is community property to be divided equally. It affirmed that apportionment (the trial court's formula yielded a one-third share for wife). It reversed the order that ended spousal support jurisdiction after 24 months, because the record only speculated about wife's self-sufficiency, and remanded for reconsideration based on the parties' current income and earning potential.

What it means for the financial analysis

For a pension that is labeled disability pay, the analysis should split it into a retirement-equivalent component, a community fraction based on service during marriage, and a separate excess, with the trial court's computation as a model. On support, the case shows that predictions of future earnings need record evidence before a court cuts off jurisdiction, so income and earning-capacity analysis should be documented, and the 1978 pension rules are limited by the opinion's own retroactivity footnote.

Also available on CourtListener.