separate property. See English v. English, 118 N.M. 170, 175-76, 879 P,2d 802, 807-08 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Social security benefits are considered separate property and cannot be used to set off an equal distribution of community property upon divorce.”) (citation omitted); Trinosky v. Johnstone, 2013 WL 4515931 at *5 (N.M. App. 2013) (observing "that social security benefits are generally separate property absent transmutation”) (relying on English, 118 N.M. 170, 879 P.2d 802). See also, In re Marriage of Peterson, 243 Cal.App.4th 923, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 (Ct, App. 2016) (determining that federal social security law preempts state community property law, and that social security is separate property ’under federal law); Luna v. Luna, 125 Ariz. 120, 123, 608 P.2d 57, 60 (Ct. App. 1979) (<HOLDING>). 29 . See Trustee's Exhibit 7, pp. 88-90. See
holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits holding that the social security disability benefits received by petitioner are his separate property and no offsetting award ban be made to respondentappellee  holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits holding that the workers compensation offset includes total social security disability benefits received by claimant and his dependents holding social security disability payments and military disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage