Pension Denied Ex-Wife of Soldier : Justice: Appeal court says divorcee may not share in husband’s benefits earned before they were married the second time.

The ex-wife of a serviceman may not share in her spouse’s military pension earned before they were married, a state appellate court in San Diego ruled Monday.

In a case with an unusual twist, the 4th District Court of Appeal said Edmund O. Fredericks’ $1,800 monthly pension was his alone because he earned it through service in the Army from 1949 to 1971.

Treva A. Fredericks had no right to claim that pension even though she and Edmund Fredericks were married--a first time, in Pennsylvania--for most of his Army service, from 1953 to 1972, the court said.

The couple married again in 1975 in Pennsylvania, but divorced again in 1981, this time in California.

But the first marriage gave her no legal right to claim a community property interest in the pension, since the first marriage was, by 1975, “legal history” and could bestow no rights, the court said.

The case is unrelated to a battle over military pensions that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress waged in the early 1980s.

In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that the spouse who “earned” the pension got to keep it. In 1983, Congress negated that ruling by saying the states could again treat the pensions as community property, meaning they could be split.

However, a lawyer for Edmund Fredericks, Leyon Sakey, said the decision was intriguing. If it stands, the ruling should deter ex-spouses from filing suit to claim pension shares, Sakey said.

“It’s kind of important because this business of military pensions is getting out of hand,” Sakey said.

“Women are coming here to California and ambushing men who were divorced in another state and then happened to end up in California,” Sakey said. California’s community property laws attempt to divide a couple’s assets by splitting them equally between former spouses.

Edmund Fredericks, 59, a retired marketing executive who lives in Spring Valley, said Monday that he was pleased by the decision. His ex-wife, who lives in Ontario, said Monday night that she was uncertain whether to appeal.

Treva Fredericks, 59, a computer systems trainer, said, “I was married to that man for 25 years and got nothing, absolutely nothing. Don’t you think I’m entitled to something? I helped him earn that pension. I don’t think that’s just. I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think that’s justice.”

Edmund Fredericks served in the Army from June, 1949, to December, 1971, specializing in electronics technology, and rising to the rank of command sergeant major in the 1st Infantry Division.

The first marriage ended in 1972. In 1975, three years after he began drawing the pension, the couple remarried.

In 1977, they moved to California. Less than a year later, she asked a California court for a divorce, which was granted in 1981.

In 1988, Treva Fredericks filed legal papers asking for a share of the pension, arguing it was community property and subject to sharing.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert C. Thaxton ruled that she was entitled to 41% of his benefits plus $6,966 in back payments, finding that the pension was a community property asset.

A three-judge 4th District Court of Appeal panel, however, said Treva Fredericks was entitled to no share and no back payments, ruling that it was not community property.

The pension was Edmund Frederick’s separate property, meaning it was his to do with as he wished, because he earned it before the second marriage, Justice Howard Wiener said for the unanimous panel.

The complication--that the couple had been married before--made no difference, he said. “Treva’s legal rights immediately following her second marriage to Edmund were the same as if she had married a man to whom she had never been previously married,” Wiener said.

Justices Richard D. Huffman and Charles W. Froehlich Jr. concurred in the opinion.