# In Re Marriage of Sullivan (2023) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ In this case, the Appellate Court held that Petitioner (Wife) impliedly consented to California her military pension where her petition requested to divide community property and she requested appointing an expert to propose a division of the parties’ retirement benefits. The Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouse’s Protection Act (FUSFSPA), 10 U.S.C. section 1408, provides that a state court can only divide military pensions under certain circumstances, one of which is the service member’s consent. When Petitioner filed for divorce in California, she had a military pension. In her petition, she checked off boxes on the judicial council form asking to determine her separate property and for a determination of her community property.  The petition also stated that the extent of community property assets was unknown and to be determined during the proceedings. Wife also motioned to appoint a 730 expert to determine a proposed division of the property including the parties’ retirement accounts. The trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction to divide wife’s military pension. The Appellate Court **reversed**, stating that the wife impliedly consented to California jurisdiction over her pension. (_Id_. at p. ___ - ___.) The Court of Appeal did recognize that a minority of other states require express consent. (_Id_. at p. ___.) **COMMENTARY AND PRACTICE POINTERS**: What would have happened if wife had written in the petition she objected to California Jurisdiction over her pension, citing FUSFSPA? Parts of the opinion suggest that merely filing the petition might be sufficient to invoke California jurisdiction over the pension. (_Id_. at p. ___). Other parts suggest that responding to a petition, though distinguishable, could be consent to jurisdiction. (_Id_. at p. ___; compare, _IRMO Tucker_ (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1249 (service member was respondent and not domiciled in California). It is not clear if anything can be done to guarantee that California lacks jurisdiction over the pension, and perhaps filing a case in another jurisdiction, if appropriate, should be considered. A respondent should consider objecting to California jurisdiction, if appropriate.