Copeland v. Copeland

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that vested retirement rights earned during the marriage are a community asset subject to division at time of divorce, even though the husband has not yet retired
• recognizing that “[t]here can be no set rule for determining every case and as in all other cases of property distribution, the trial court must exercise a wise and sound discretion” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• affirming the rule adopted in LeClert v. LeClert, 80 N.M. 235, 453 P.2d 755 (1969); Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.1976); and Wilder v. Wilder, 85 Wash.2d 364, 534 P.2d 1355 (1975
• retirement plans are a form of employee compensation and if acquired during marriage are community property subject to division
• although pension there at issue was vested, court stated in dicta that an unvested pension \cannot be said to constitute a property right because the benefits rest upon the whim of the employer.\
• although pension there at issue was vested, court stated in dicta that an unvested pension “cannot be said to constitute a property right because the benefits rest upon the whim of the employer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).