RULING BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF GRAY v GRAY
DISPOSITIONThe order providing for apportionment of James's defined benefit pension per the time rule is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to exercise its discretion to equitably apportion the defined pension benefits and divide the community interest in accordance with Family Code sections 2610, subdivision (a), and 2550. We express no opinion on the proper method of apportionment, i.e., per the time rule or any other particular formula.
WE CONCUR: BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P.J., and McADAMS, J.
The above disposition is by the California Superior court in the case of Gray v Gray regarding spousal benefits from IBEW LOCAL 332 Pension Trust A. I underlined and emphasized the important wording.
IBEW PENSION TRUST A recommends and accepts QDROs based on the time rule formula, even though this court ruling rejects the validity of the time rule for our pension.
The IBEW LOCAL 332 Pension Trust explanation of the “Brown” formula (that they endorse) also known as the “Time” formula mentioned in the Superior Court deposition is below.
“F. SAMPLE QDRO
It also should be noted that the formula used in both samples for dividing the benefits in part A is the standard “Brown” formula developed by the California courts and specifically approved by the California Supreme Court in Lehman v Lehman. ….........”
Who do you suppose is correct? The Plan or the Superior court?
The Superior court ruled against the “Time” (Brown) formula for our pension but the Plan still encourages its use."