In Henn v. Henn (1980) 26 Cal.3d 323, Henry Henn argued that a denial of a motion to modify the original decree "was a favorable ruling on the merit of his res judicata defense to the motion." ( Henn v. Henn, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 331.) The court rejected the claim because of Henry's failure to establish that the motion was denied on that ground. ( Id., at p. 332.) However, the court said: "If Henry had established that the denial constituted an adjudication of . . . his res judicata defense, it could have been entitled to res judicata effect as a valid exercise of the court's general equity jurisdiction. " ( Id., at p. 332, fn. 7.) The California Supreme Court has virtually eliminated res judicata as a defense to a later suit seeking partition of a community asset that was left undivided in the earlier action for dissolution. Said the court: "Under California law, a spouse's entitlement to a share of the community property arises at the time that the property is acquired. ( Civ. Code, 5107, 5108, 5110.) That interest is not altered except by judicial decree or an agreement between the parties. Hence 'under settled principles of California community property law, "property which is not mentioned in the pleadings as community property is left unadjudicated by decree of divorce, and is subject to future litigation, the parties being tenants in common meanwhile."' This rule applies to partial divisions of community property as well as divorces unaccompanied by any property adjudication whatsoever." ( Id., at p. 330.) In Henn v. Henn, the former husband's military pension was mentioned in "neither the pleadings nor the judgment . . . ." (Id. at p. 327, superceded by 2556 as stated in In re Marriage of Hixson (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1121.) The husband admitted that, at the time of the interlocutory decree, his pension was part community property. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court in Henn held where "it is conceded that the issue of husband's military pension was not before the court which issued the final decree, the judgment of that court cannot be said to have extinguished wife's putative interest in that asset." (Id. at p. 330.) Henn further held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the wife's post judgment OSC seeking to divide the pension as community property because the issue had not been litigated and determined in the dissolution, nor was it within the scope of the prior action, and the husband "failed to demonstrate that the wife was relying upon some specific factual or legal contention which would have been relevant to the adjudication of the parties' rights to the property distributed in the 1971 decree if it had been raised." (Id. at p. 331, ) The California Supreme Court practically eliminated res judicata as a defense to a later suit seeking division of a community asset left unadjudicated in the earlier dissolution action. (Miller v. Miller (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 366, 369.) The court explained, " 'under settled principles of California community property law, "property which is not mentioned in the pleadings as community property is left unadjudicated by decree of divorce, and is subject to future litigation, the parties being tenants in common meanwhile. " ' " (Henn v. Henn, supra, at p. 330.) If rights to the pension were not adjudicated, later division was possible in a new action.