Marriage of Ruhman
Filed 4/10/06 Marriage of Ruhman CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re Marriage of ROBERT and CHERYL RUHMAN. | |
| ROBERT RUHMAN, Respondent, v. CHERYL RUHMAN, Appellant. | G034692 (Super. Ct. No. D177854) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Frederick P. Aguirre, Judge. Affirmed.
Hosford & Hosford, Valerie Ryall Hosford for Appellant.
Michel & Rhyne, Michael Michel for Respondent.
In this case, the trial court determined it lacked jurisdiction to enforce one part of a stipulated marital dissolution judgment involving the division of one spouse's Social Security benefits. The judgment was entered over 20 years ago, based on a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) written without assistance from counsel. Back then, the litigants apparently did not understand the unique and peculiar nature of the Social Security retirement scheme. We affirm because, due to federal preemption principles, Social Security benefits (paid or payable) are entirely immune from division by state family law courts.
I
After over 23 years of marriage, Robert Ruhman initiated dissolution proceedings. In 1980, Robert and Cheryl Ruhman, without assistance from attorneys, signed a succinct two-page MSA.[1] In it the parties agreed (1) to sell their house and evenly split the proceeds, (2) to divide their possessions (Cheryl took the furniture, Robert kept the tools), (3) Robert would purchase a car for Cheryl, (4) Robert would pay Cheryl $300 per month for five years, and (5) upon Robert's retirement, Cheryl would â€
