# In Re Marriage of Campa

> California Court of Appeal · February 2, 1979 · 89 Cal. App. 3d 113

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718668

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re the Marriage of CHRISTINE and FERNANDO S. CAMPA. CHRISTINE CAMPA, Appellant, v. FERNANDO S. CAMPA, Respondent; CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Respondent; In Re the Marriage of JOAN CLARE and JAMES PATRICK DURKIN. JOAN CLARE DURKIN, Respondent, v. JAMES PATRICK DURKIN, Respondent; CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Appellant; CAROLYN J. BRYANT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** February 2, 1979
- **Citations:** 89 Cal. App. 3d 113; 152 Cal. Rptr. 362; 1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 1363
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brunn
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718668

## Opinion text

THE COURT.
In its petition for rehearing the Fund contends that our opinion conflicts with the decision recently rendered by the United States Supreme Court in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979) 439 U.S. 572 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 1 , 99 S.Ct. 802 ]. The Hisquierdo court reviewed a California marital-dissolution judgment in which the community property law of this state had been applied as the basis for awarding the wife an interest in future pension benefits to be paid the husband under the Railroad Retirement Act. ( 45 U.S.C.A. § 231 et seq.) The court held that California’s community property laws could not support the award because they conflicted with pertinent provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act, which had therefore preempted them by operation of the supremacy clause; (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2; Hisquierdo, supra, at p. 590 [ 59 L.Ed.2d at p. 16 ].) In a footnote, however, the court expressly distinguished ERISA and established that the decision did not reach it. (Hisquierdo, supra, at p. 590, fn. 24 [ 59 L.Ed.2d at p. 16 ].) Hisquierdo therefore does not affect the present case.
The petition of the appellant Trust Fund for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 12, 1979.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718668. Public record. Not legal advice.