In 1996, the parties divorced in Louisiana, a community property state. The divorce decree did not partition the marital estate, leaving each party with an undivided one-half interest in the property owned by the couple. See La. Civ. Code Ann. § 2336 “Each spouse owns a present undivided one-half interest in the community property. . . .”; Wallack v. Wallack , 211 Ga. 745, 748 88 SE2d 154 1955 stating, in an equity case based on an accounting, that “where community property is not disposed of in a divorce between the parties, or is not referred to in the decree, or put in issue by the pleadings, the former husband and wife become as to such property tenants in common”. Appellee later moved to Georgia, and in 2008, Appellant filed a complaint against him in Liberty County Superior Court seeking the imposition of a constructive trust on her interest in his military retirement benefits. See Warner v. Warner , 651 So.2d 1339, 1340 La. 1995 holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouse’s future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to one-half of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service. Appellant subsequently amended the complaint to seek domestication of the Louisiana divorce decree as well. The trial court dismissed the action, and Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals transferred the appeal here based on this Court’s jurisdiction over all divorce and alimony cases and all equity cases. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III 2 and 6.
However, this is not a divorce and alimony case. The parties have been divorced for 14 years, and the divorce decree left title to the community property owned by the couple where it stood. See Cale v. Cale , 242 Ga. 600, 601 250 SE2d 467 1978 “Title to property, including jointly owned property, not described in the verdict and judgment is unaffected by the divorce decree and remains titled in the name of the owner or owners before the decree was entered.” Appellant challenges the resulting allocation of the retirement benefits property, but her rights depend not on the divorce decree but rather on property law. “The parties here do not seek to have the trial court clarify or alter their previous divorce decree,” but rather to have the court decide issues that were left unresolved by the Louisiana court. Barolia v. Pirani , 260 Ga. App. 513, 514 580 SE2d 297 2003.
