California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Benson v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.Rptr. 257, 384 P.2d 649, 60 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1963):
No reason is suggested why we should depart from the foregoing decisions to the effect that a wife of a public employee acquires no vested interest in a pension until it becomes payable to her. On the other hand, to vest such an interest prior thereto 'would remove a considerable amount of the flexibility necessary for operation of pension systems, because it would mean that provisions benefiting any third person would be frozen into the law with respect to all employees then in service and that these interests could not be removed regardless of the consent of the employee and regardless of whether the employee was given other pension benefits which might be of greater value to him than the one sought to be eliminated.' (Packer v. Board of Retirement, supra, 35 Cal.2d 212, 217, 217 P.2d 660, 664.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.