Marriage of Jacobson
Court of Appeals of California
207 Cal. Rptr. 512 (1984)
- Written by Maggy Gregory, JD
Facts
Mrs. Jacobson (plaintiff) filed for divorce from Mr. Jacobson (defendant) on June 11, 1980, after 15 years of marriage. Mr. Jacobson was an active-duty military member who resided in Iowa but was located in California as a result of his military service. On June 30, 1980, Mr. Jacobson filed a motion to dismiss the California divorce action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and lack of consent. On July 1, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson signed a handwritten consent decree, which was filed with the commissioner and provided, in pertinent part, that Mr. Jacobson agreed to have the case resolved under California law. On November 25, 1980, during the proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson signed a second stipulation expressly stating that the court was to reserve jurisdiction over Mr. Jacobson's military pension. In 1983, Mr. Jacobson became eligible to receive his military pension, although he did not retire. Mrs. Jacobson filed an action to divide Mr. Jacobson's pension. Mr. Jacobson claimed that the trial court did not have jurisdiction either to apply California law or to determine that his military pension was community property. The trial court made factual determinations and a legal division of Mr. Jacobson's pension. Mr. Jacobson appealed the trial court's decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.