With the greatest of respect, I am unable to agree. I understand Rutherford to be saying exactly that. In Rutherford Mr. Justice Seaton refers to the California case of Gilmore v. Gilmore, 174 Cal. Rptr. 493 (1981). This case does not appear to have been presented, in its entirety, to the court in Littleproud. I have had the benefit of reading the full report and the principle is spelled out very clearly that once a pension is available, the wife's access to that pension should not be dependent on the husband's choice of date of retirement.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.