I dissent. The majority hold that plaintiff is entitled to all of the accumulated retirement funds standing in the account of her former husband. Although I agree that plaintiff should be paid her half share of these community funds, Government Code section 21201 precludes us from awarding to plaintiff any portion of her husband’s half interest therein.
Section 21201 provides that “The right of a person to any benefit or other right under this part and the money in the Retirement Fund is not subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, or any other process what*51soever, and are unassignable . . . .” The italicized phrase is clearly broad enough to include judgments in divorce decrees, since “Process has normally been considered to mean those actions that are initiated either independently, such as the original commencement of a suit, or those processes initiated collaterally, such as an attachment.” (Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines, 198 Cal.App.2d 611, 613 [17 Cal.Rptr. 919].) In Miller v. Superior Court, 69 Cal.2d 14 [69 Cal.Rptr. 583, 442 P.2d 663], we construed language similar to section 21201 as exempting pension payments from liability to a former wife for alimony. And in Ogle v. Heim, 69 Cal.2d 7 [69 Cal.Rptr. 579, 442 P.2d 659], we interpreted Government Code section 31452, protecting county pensions from legal process in language identical to section 21201, as barring execution against pension funds for child support. (See also Thomas v. Thomas, 192 Cal.App.2d 771, 783 [13 Cal.Rptr. 872], holding that the status of a divorced wife as beneficiary of an alimony decree is no different from that of other judgment creditors.) The carefully reasoned opinions in Miller and Ogle received the unanimous support of this court, and their rationale is controlling in this case.
The majority attempt to distinguish Miller and Ogle solely on the ground that “Plaintiff, however, claims not as a creditor, but as an owner with a ‘present, existing, and equal interest.’ (Civ. Code, § 161a, now § 5105.) The recognition of an ownership claim cannot be described as the levy of execution, garnishment, attachment or assignment of property.” (Ante, p. 44.) The majority fail to recognize that as to her husband’s half share of these community funds, plaintiff claims not as owner, but solely as judgment creditor. The divorce decree awarding to plaintiff her husband’s share of those funds under former Civil Code section 146 clearly constituted judicial “process” under section 21201, and was indistinguishable in legal effect from the similar awards of alimony and child support in Miller and Ogle, decreed pursuant to former Civil Code section 139.
Section 146, like section 139, derived from provisions first, adopted in this state in 1872, and authorized the divorce court to “assign” the community property to the respective spouses in such proportions as the court may deem just, in cases wherein the decree is rendered on the ground of adultery, incurable insanity or extreme cruelty. Relying upon section 146, the majority assert that “the possibility that upon divorce an asset may be awarded entirely to one spouse is one of the incidents of community property and, in a sense, a qualification of the equal interests of each spouse in each community asset. Hence the award of a community asset to one spouse is not the kind of transfer or conveyance of a property interest contemplated by section 21201’s prohibition against assignment.” (Ante, p. 47.)
*52However, the mere possibility that the divorce court may, in its discretion, award a portion of the husband’s share of the community property to the wife under section 146 is no more a “qualification” upon the husband’s property rights than the possibility that the court will also order payments of alimony or child support from his share of that property. And yet in Miller and Ogle, we unanimously rejected the contention that an award of alimony or child support somehow “qualified” the husband’s pension rights.
The majority’s misconception regarding the underlying nature of plaintiff’s claim is revealed by placing the matter in its proper historical perspective. Prior to 1927, in California the wife had “no title to the community property nor estate or interest therein,” even though by reason of section 146 “upon a divorce she may, in a proper case, be awarded even the whole of it.” (Estate of Brix, 181 Cal. 667, 676 [186 P. 135]; see Stewart v. Stewart, 199 Cal. 318 [249 P. 197]; 1 Armstrong, California Family Law, pp. 585-589.) In 1927, Civil Code section 161a was enacted, providing that “The respective interests of the husband and wife in community property during continuance of the marriage relation are present, existing, and equal interests . . . (Italics added.) Therefore, notwithstanding the preexisting provisions of former section 146, the wife’s ownership interest in the community property derives solely from section 161a and is limited to an equal share of that property. Plaintiff obtained her purported interest in her husband’s share of the community property not in recognition of her claim as owner of that property, but pursuant to a judgment of divorce. As stated in Stevenson v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 150, 152 [41 Cal.Rptr. 466, 396 P.2d 922], a divorce decree in favor of the wife on the ground of extreme cruelty “thereby created in her a valuable property right to a share of the community property in excess of one-half.” (Italics added; see also McClenny v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 140, 145-146 [41 Cal.Rptr. 460, 396 P.2d 916].) It is significant that in both Stevenson, supra, and McClenny, supra, the court speaks of an “award” of the community property to a spouse. To award, in this sense, means to give or assign by judicial decree. (See Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) p. 174.)
Thus, since plaintiff claims her husband’s share of the community funds solely by virtue of the court’s award, in fact as judgment creditor, rather than as owner, Government Code section 21201 applies as an express statutory bar to the claim. Contrary to the majority’s assumption, this result would not prevent divorce courts from awarding all retirement or pension rights to the employee spouse and community property of equal value to the nonemployee spouse, for the immunity granted by section 21201 may reasonably be construed as running only in favor of those *53persons entitled to benefits under the terms of the Public Employee Retirement Law. Since nonemployee- spouses such as plaintiff derive their interest in such benefits by reason of the operation of the community property laws, rather than the retirement act, section 21201 would not preclude judicial “assignment” of these benefits to the employee spouse.
As stated in City of San Jose v. Forsythe, 261 Cal.App.2d 114, 117 [67 Cal.Rptr. 754], “The law of California favors the enforceability of clauses protecting retirement benefits from the claims of creditors. . . . In view of [this] policy ... the language therein employed should be liberally construed [citation].” The majority opinion ignores these policies and reaches a result in direct conflict with the principles announced in Miller and Ogle. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent therefrom.
McComb, J., concurred.