OPINION1
In 1987, the legislature passed NRS 125.161 which gave ex-spouses of military retirement benefit recipients the right to partition the retirement benefits according to the time spent in military service during the marriage if the retirement proceeds had not been divided in the property agreement accompanying the divorce.2 This statute in effect reversed our decision in Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 102 Nev. 652, 729 P.2d 1363 (1986), that post-divorce partition of military retirements benefits is barred by res judicata.
The wives in these cases (respondents) each brought an action based on NRS 125.161 to partition the husbands’ (appellants’) *386military retirement benefits in the district court after the legislature had passed NRS 125.161. Following the provisions of NRS 125.161, the district court entered judgment in favor of respondents and partitioned the military retirement benefits.
On March 20, 1989, after respondents had prevailed in the district court, the governor signed Senate Bill 11 into law, to take effect immediately, repealing NRS 125.161. Senate Bill 11 also provided that the courts would immediately lose jurisdiction over any action brought under NRS 125.161 that had been appealed but not yet affirmed by this court.3 From the language of Senate Bill 11 it is apparent that the legislature intended to prevent all Nevada courts, including this court, from giving the benefit of the statutory partition of retirement proceeds to the nonmember spouse in any case that was still pending before the courts when the governor signed the act.
Respondents argue that, even though the legislature has taken away the statutory cause of action to divide the military retirement benefits, we may still affirm the trial court based on common law principles of community property. While we agree that Senate Bill 11 had the effect of voiding any legislative intervention into the subject of post-divorce partition of military retirement benefits and that common law again governs, we do not agree that common law dictates an affirmance of the district court’s partition.
The decisional law in this state prior to the enactment of NRS 125.161 held that, absent extrinsic fraud on the part of the party opposing post-divorce partition of retirement benefits, ex-spouses *387may not bring a new cause of action to partition retirement benefits after the property agreement has become a judgment of the court.4 As stated above, we reached this conclusion based on res judicata. See Tomlinson, 102 Nev. 652, 729 P.2d 1363. We do not recognize a common law cause of action to partition retirement benefits not distributed as part of the property agreement at the time of divorce.
Since the legislature has taken away respondents’ statutory cause of action and since we do not allow a common law cause of action for partition of an ex-spouse’s retirement benefits after judgment has been entered on the property agreement, we reverse the judgment of the district court which partitioned the retirement benefits and, instead, instruct the district court to enter judgment in favor of appellants.