Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Marriage of Gram

Court of Appeal of California
25 Cal. App. 4th 859 (1994)


Marilyn (defendant) and Allen (plaintiff) Gram were married in May 1960. Allen became employed with the San Diego Union-Tribune Newspapers (Union-Tribune) in October 1968. Allen began to accrue retirement credit in November 1969. Marilyn and Allen separated in 1981 and entered into a marital termination agreement in 1983. The agreement provided the trial court with continuing jurisdiction to decide how to divide Allen’s employment benefits and provided a formula for the trial court to use in conducting the division. Marilyn was entitled to a one-half interest of the community interest in Allen’s employment benefits. In 1991, the San Diego Union and San Diego Tribune announced that the companies would merge. After the merger, the newspaper companies did not plan to retain all employees of both companies. The companies offered three voluntary-termination incentive plans. The plans available were the enhanced retirement plan, the enhanced early-retirement plan, and the voluntary separation plan. Allen received a statement of benefits detailing how much Allen would receive under each retirement plan. In order to qualify for the enhanced early-retirement plan, Allen had to have at least 10 years of service to Union-Tribune. The plan also added five years to Allen’s years of service and five years to Allen’s age. Under the enhanced early-retirement plan, Allen would receive a significantly greater payment than under any of the other plans. Allen chose to retire under the enhanced early-retirement plan. In 1992, Marilyn petitioned the trial court to rule on whether Allen’s enhanced retirement benefits were separate or community property. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the enhanced portion of Allen’s retirement benefits was Allen’s separate property. Marilyn appealed the trial court’s ruling.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Benke, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial