California family law cases, read for the numbers
California appellate opinions on tracing, income for support, and business valuation, each with a plain English summary and a note on what the case means for the financial analysis.
Updated monthly. Last updated October 2026.
Tracing and characterization
Separate and community property, commingled accounts, and apportionment of assets acquired or improved during marriage.
-
Marriage of Freeman No. G064552 | California Court of Appeal
Under Moore/Marsden, the community's percentage freezes at separation, but the property is valued near trial under section 2552. Affirmed.
SummaryHub bought a rental property in 1992 and paid it off in 2013. The trial court found a 60.2 percent community interest from principal paydown and improvements, valued the property at $2.1 million using Rod's appraiser as of February 2022, and imputed $5,400 a month to Rod before setting $2,100 a month in permanent support. The court held that Hub confused two numbers: the community percentage is fixed at separation, while value is set as near to trial as practicable under section 2552. It also held the support award was within the trial court's discretion, and affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Dadashian No. A163185 | California Court of Appeal
A spouse who controls a third-party manager of marital or separate funds must account for missing assets after separation.
SummaryIn 2008, the couple withdrew $130,000–$150,000 from a HELOC and sent it to Laleh's brother in Iran for investment. Separately, Ramin's roughly $170,000 inheritance was also transferred to the brother's control. At trial, neither asset was accounted for. The trial court declined to shift the burden to Laleh under Margulis, reasoning that she played only a "minor role" in managing the Iran assets and that the HELOC had been forgiven by the lender. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that Margulis burden-shifting applies when one spouse exclusively controls the relationship with a third-party money manager (here, Laleh's brother), even though the spouse is not personally managing the day-to-day investments. The court further extended Margulis to cover separate property: a spouse who manages her partner's separate property and controls access to its records bears the same fiduciary accounting duty as for community property. On the evidence, Ramin easily met the low prima facie threshold. He presented his own testimony, his friend's corroborating testimony about the Tehran property purchase, and two of Laleh's own pretrial disclosures listing the Iranian real estate and the $150,000 HELOC placement. Once he made that showing, Laleh was required to prove proper disposition or lesser value; her assertions that the money was "gone" or that she "didn't know" were insufficient. The judgment was reversed and remanded for retrial.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Whitman No. A157055M | California Court of Appeal
A husband who could not document the source of his $900,000 startup capital or its withdrawal lost his claim that the hedge fund was separate property.
SummaryDoug claimed about $18 million of a $31.6 million hedge fund was separate property traceable to $900,000 of premarital capital. The trial court accepted only $300,000. His story on the $500,000 changed from discovery (Alex Brown) to trial (Hambrecht), and the $100,000 had no Northern Trust records and a trail that ended when Gardner Lewis mailed checks. Doug then withdrew $900,000 in July 1995 into a separately titled premarital account with no records of its later use, and the court held that withdrawal exhausted any separate interest. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the whole fund was community property (this part of the opinion is unpublished). It reversed only the allocation of a $935,000 SEC penalty to the community.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Whitman No. A157055 | California Court of Appeal
A spouse who could not document the source of his seed capital, and who withdrew it years earlier, lost his separate property claim to the entire fund.
SummaryDoug put $900,000 into his hedge fund in 1994 and later added community compensation to the same capital account. He claimed a separate interest of nearly $18 million in a fund then worth about $31.6 million. The trial court accepted only the $300,000 tranche as traceable. It rejected the $500,000 because his testimony was unreliable, since he had named a different brokerage account in discovery and his expert relied on that account. It rejected the $100,000 because no records showed the money moving from the Gardner Lewis checks to the Northern Trust account that funded it. A $900,000 withdrawal in July 1995 went into his separately titled premarital account, so the court found he had withdrawn his separate capital and nothing remained. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the fund was entirely community, and reversed only on an unrelated debt issue (the SEC penalty). The tracing discussion is in the unpublished part of the opinion.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Motiska & Ford No. A166543M | California Court of Appeal
A spouse's sale of separate property to the community for a self-set $1 price is not a 2640 contribution, so no reimbursement claim exists.
SummaryMotiska sold his premarital sole proprietorship, Neon Palm, to Buxup, a corporation found to be community property, for $1. He had chosen the price himself, partly to avoid business transfer taxes. The trial court had already found he failed to trace Buxup's funding to separate funds because his records were inadequate. The court of appeal held that a sale is not a contribution under section 2640, the $1 price fixed the value, and there was no basis to treat it as a de facto gift absent undue influence or a sham. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Simonis No. C095193 | California Court of Appeal
A spouse who commingles after separation must trace each debt payment; an aggregate comparison of assets held versus debts paid fails, and the commingled mass is community.
SummaryAlan held the community cash, 2015 crop income, and cattle for five years after separation. He mixed them with his own funds and paid community debts from the mix. He claimed reimbursement by comparing total debts paid to total community assets held. The court held that See v. See's rejection of aggregate tracing applies after separation, so he had to use direct tracing or a time-specific recapitulation showing community funds were exhausted when each payment was made. Without that, the commingled herds and funds were community and he got no credit. Division is valued near trial under section 2552, not at the separation date, absent a noticed motion. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Belthius No. B315673 | California Court of Appeal
Under the time rule, the community share of a pension is applied to the final benefit at retirement, not the benefit at the rank held on the separation date.
SummaryThe parties separated in 1995, and a stipulated judgment divided the husband's LAPD pension under the time rule. He kept working until 2019 and retired as a Lieutenant II, but the trial court signed his QDRO, which applied the community fraction to a hypothetical benefit at his separation rank of Police Officer III. The Court of Appeal held that post-separation promotions do not create a separate property piece, because the final benefit comes from an indivisible mix of effort before and after separation. It also held that a clause returning the wife's share to the husband if she died first violated Family Code section 2610. The order was reversed and remanded for a QDRO applying the time rule to the benefit as defined at retirement.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Ramsey and Holmes No. B305584 | California Court of Appeal
In a Moore/Marsden calculation, only community-funded principal reduction counts, and both spouses must supply the evidence, so the case was remanded for limited retrial.
SummaryHolmes bought the home before marriage with $140,000 down and a $600,000 adjustable mortgage. The trial court treated all community-funded payments, about $288,000 at an average of $3,200 a month, as principal reduction. His declarations showed much of each payment went to interest, taxes, and insurance, and neither side proved the principal figure. The Court of Appeal held that was error under Moore, rejected forfeiture and the argument that the burden sat only with Ramsey, and reversed and remanded for a limited retrial on the principal reduction and a recalculation.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Kelpe No. H045089 | California Court of Appeal
A $928,243 lump-sum payout from a post-separation partner retirement plan was separate property, because the contract right arose after separation.
SummaryNicolas worked at Ernst & Young through a 2010 separation, then became an equity partner in 2012 with a $150,000 contribution from post-separation funds. Partnership gave him access to the Top-Hat Plan, which non-partners could not join. When he left in 2015 before vesting, he received $928,243, calculated on 20 years of service, 13 of them during marriage, and net of his accrued benefit under the existing plans. The court held the payout was entirely separate property, because he acquired the contractual right only upon joining the partnership after separation. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Nevai and Klemunes No. C086584 | California Court of Appeal
A community that gets a Moore/Marsden share of appreciation cannot also recover mortgage interest and property taxes; permanent spousal support cannot rest on a DissoMaster figure.
SummaryWife's pre-marital Tahoe cabin was paid from a joint account, and the community used it. The expert's Moore/Marsden propertizer was upheld, including mortgage balances estimated from 1098 forms and a $7,000 improvement figure. But the $176,951 reimbursement for interest and taxes was error because the community already shared in appreciation and was never charged for its use of the property. The $3,584 permanent support award was reversed because it tracked the temporary DissoMaster figure ($3,673) with no sign the court weighed the section 4320 factors. Reversed on the interest and tax reimbursement, the equalization payment, the permanent support award, and the fee order. Affirmed otherwise.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Janes 11 Cal. App. 5th 1043 | California Court of Appeal
A fixed-dollar 401(k) award became wife's separate property when the judgment was entered, so later gains and losses are hers, running from that date, not separation.
SummaryA 2010 settlement awarded Wife $113,392 from Husband's 401(k), but the money sat in his account until 2014. Wife sought a QDRO adding gains and losses back to the 2009 separation date. The court held the sum became her separate property when the agreement was executed on April 19, 2010, so later gains and losses were hers under Family Code 770(a)(3), and awarding them did not modify the judgment. It rejected Husband's claim that the sum was a fixed equalization payment, since nothing in the agreement said so. Wife had not given notice or shown good cause for an alternative valuation date under section 2552, so the start date was wrong. Affirmed, with directions to change the start date to April 19, 2010.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Schleich 8 Cal. App. 5th 267 | California Court of Appeal
Section 1101 asset penalties apply only to undisclosed community property, and cannot be stacked on the same asset in the property division.
SummaryHusband hid separate brokerage accounts ($133,763, of which only $25,800 was community), $164,614 of side business income spent before separation, and a $200,000 community loan mostly repaid before separation. The court held that nondisclosure of separate property or of income already spent is not a section 1101 breach, though section 2107 sanctions still apply. It also held that a 50 or 100 percent award under section 1101 replaces the same share in the property division, so the trial court's double counting had to be removed. It upheld permanent spousal support of $6,000, then $2,600 a month, which rested on a 3 percent return imputed to Husband's liquid assets plus his self-employment capacity. The judgment was reversed in part, cutting the section 1101 award by $327,357 and the equalizing payment by $48,950, and the fee award was remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of McLain 7 Cal. App. 5th 262 | California Court of Appeal
A retired supported spouse past 65 need not be imputed income, and a handwritten note plus vague testimony does not trace separate property.
SummaryBoth spouses retired in 2005. Wife, 66, had $746 a month in Social Security, Husband had about $10,000 a month in retirement income, and the court awarded $4,000 a month in support without imputing income to Wife. Husband sought Section 2640 reimbursement for about $412,787 of separate funds (San Dimas sale proceeds and a 401A) put into a $507,700 house, backed only by his handwritten note and Wife's testimony that "some of it" was used. The court held that retirement past age 65 could outweigh the self-support goal, that tracing requires documentary proof, and that the tracing failed because the money was commingled in joint accounts and more funds were available than the house cost. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Chapman 3 Cal. App. 5th 719 | California Court of Appeal
A spouse's post-judgment switch from taxable military retirement to separate-property CRSC cannot defeat the other spouse's agreed community share, though a constructive trust was the wrong remedy.
SummaryPhilip's 2003 settlement agreement gave Judy $475 a month as her community share of his military retirement pay. After judgment he elected tax-free combat-related special compensation in lieu of retirement pay, in the same dollar amount, and kept paying Judy until 2014. The court held the election could not defeat her community interest, because the order enforced the agreement and did not divide the CRSC as property. It reversed the constructive trust because his election was not wrongful, and left other equitable relief to the trial court. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Nassimi 3 Cal. App. 5th 667 | California Court of Appeal
A liability from a third party's rescission suit over a community business sale was an omitted community debt, split equally under section 2556.
SummaryHusband sold the community business IEI during the marriage for $14 million up front. After the 2009 dissolution judgment, the buyer sued to rescind over FCC noncompliance, and Husband settled by paying $1 million of his own funds plus the $1 million escrow. The court held the debt was community because the contract was made during marriage and the community took the benefit: about $12 million in proceeds, mostly into the Sea View home, with $1.5 million split at separation. The judgment's escrow and earn-out provisions did not cover a rescission suit, so Wife owes half of the $1 million Husband paid, but his claim for litigation fees failed because he could not allocate block-billed entries. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the prevailing-party fee award was reversed and remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Peterson 243 Cal. App. 4th 923 | California Court of Appeal
County pension is community property and must be split equally; the other spouse's separate Social Security cannot be offset or reimbursed.
SummaryThe husband paid Social Security through mandatory payroll withholding. The wife's county pension (LACERA Plan E) barred her from Social Security, and the parties valued her pension at about $210,000 to $216,000 against his Social Security at $228,000. She sought reimbursement of his withholdings to the community, a separate-property carve-out of her pension, or a value-based offset. The court held the withholdings were never community property because the marital estate never had the option to receive them, so they are treated like taxes under Moore and Family Code 2640(a). Because the pension was the only community asset at issue, Family Code 2550 required an equal split. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Bonvino 241 Cal. App. 4th 1411 | California Court of Appeal
Absent a written express transmutation under section 852, separate funds in a home bought during marriage earn a proportionate Moore/Aufmuth share, not just 2640 reimbursement.
SummaryHusband bought the family home during marriage with a $90,212.50 separate property downpayment and a community loan, took title as his separate property, and 15 months later retired the loan with proceeds from his premarital Long Beach home. The trial court found the home community property and gave him 2640 reimbursement of $411,213.86. The court of appeal held that no writing transmuted his separate funds, so he kept a separate interest proportionate to his contributions, and it also held that the loan payoff added to that separate share. It reversed the Westlake Village characterization and division and the rental charges, remanded for recalculation, and affirmed the rest.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Brandes 239 Cal.App.4th 1461 | California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
Radical growth in pre-marriage business does not transmute it to community property; hybrid Pereira/Van Camp allocation upheld. Family living expense tracing established $120M deficit, proving separate property funded expansion. Lender's intent doctrine reversed treatment of shares purchased by promissory note.
SummaryLandmark decision establishing that a separate property business retains its character despite extraordinary growth (BIP grew from $20M to $85.7B in assets under management during the marriage). Court upheld hybrid Pereira/Van Camp allocation methodology, with each spouse's personal efforts driving growth in different periods. Family living expense tracing demonstrated that community income of approximately $50M fell short of documented family expenses of approximately $151M, creating a $120M deficit that necessarily came from separate property. Critical holding on lender's intent doctrine: the spouse claiming separate property must prove the lender relied on separate property sources, not just general business reputation. Court reversed trial court's treatment of 6,000 shares purchased via promissory note, finding the lender's intent doctrine created an unrebutted presumption of community property for the note-financed portion.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Davis 61 Cal. 4th 846 | California Supreme Court
Spouses living in the same home are not 'living separate and apart' under Family Code 771(a), so their earnings remain community property.
SummaryThe wife told the husband on June 1, 2006 that she was done with the marriage. She gave him a ledger splitting household and personal expenses, and the couple kept separate accounts. Both stayed in the marital home until July 2011, and both incomes rose sharply in 2006. The trial court set separation at June 1, 2006, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court held that separate residences are an indispensable threshold, along with at least one spouse's intent to end the marriage, objectively shown. It reserved whether separate residences under one roof could ever qualify. Reversed and remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Lafkas 237 Cal. App. 4th 921 | California Court of Appeal
Naming a spouse as joint owner of separate property is not a transmutation; section 852's express declaration is required before section 2581's joint title presumption applies.
SummaryHusband owned a one-third partnership interest before marriage. During the marriage the partnership agreement was modified to list him and wife, as husband and wife, as owners of that one-third interest, and the lender wanted her credit. The court held the modification lacked an express declaration under section 852, so the interest stayed separate. It remanded to decide whether the lenders relied on community assets or credit for the $404,000 in loans, which would give the community a proportionate share. The judgment on the partnership interest and the attorney fee award were reversed, and the rest was affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Rossin 172 Cal. App. 4th 725 | California Court of Appeal
Private disability benefits paid during marriage are separate property when the policy was bought before marriage with separate funds and no community money paid premiums.
SummaryThe wife bought a private disability policy nine years before the marriage, paid every premium herself, and began collecting benefits before the wedding. The trial court called the benefits received during marriage community property because they replaced wages. The Court of Appeal held that the right to the benefits accrued before marriage with no community contribution, so the benefits are her separate property and the wage-replacement function does not matter. Reversed and remanded with instructions to award the benefits received during marriage to the wife.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Lehman 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825 | California Supreme Court
A nonemployee spouse's community interest in a defined benefit pension extends to post-separation enhancements; the time rule applies without adding putative service years.
SummaryHusband's PG&E pension rights accrued partly during the marriage, which ended by separation in 1977. In 1993 PG&E offered an early retirement incentive that added three putative service years and waived the 18 percent early retirement reduction, and Husband retired under it. The California Supreme Court held that Wife's community interest in the pension reached the benefits as enhanced, because the enhancement derived from the pension right that accrued during marriage. It upheld the trial court's time rule apportionment (17.39 years of marital service over 32.67 total years, or 53.23 percent community), held that putative years are not added to the time-rule fraction, disapproved In re Marriage of Gram to that extent, and affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Varner 55 Cal. App. 4th 128 | California Court of Appeal
Failing to disclose the existence or value of community assets lets the other spouse set aside a stipulated judgment for mistake.
SummaryHusband testified that Varner Construction was worth about zero and Pipeline Specialties was worth negative $300,000, and the unrepresented wife then signed a stipulated division. Her later preliminary appraisal put Varner Construction at $2,000,000 to $2,750,000 and Pipeline at $300,000 to $600,000, and husband's own earlier figures to her first accountant, his loan applications, and his own appraiser all ran higher than his trial testimony. The court held that nondisclosure of the existence or value of a community asset is a mistake ground for setting aside a stipulated judgment under Family Code 2122(e), and it rejected husband's claim that the business was premarital separate property because the only evidence of his premarital assets was an earth mover listed in his prior divorce judgment. Reversed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Braud 45 Cal. App. 4th 797 | California Court of Appeal
Separate property tracing through a commingled account failed without records, while a deferred-sale home order and rental-value support offset were upheld; partly reversed and remanded.
SummaryDaniel inherited funds and used them to pay off the mortgage on the family home, claim $10,000 for improvements, and withdraw $25,000 from an account that became joint. The court affirmed the $20,734 separate property finding on the withdrawal, where bank records showed the deposits and the community funds were exhausted by living expenses. It reversed the $10,000 improvement reimbursement because Daniel had no records of the amounts spent or of the commingled account's deposits and balances. It also held the trial court could award a percentage interest instead of a fixed reimbursement sum on a deferred sale, and affirmed the 50 percent net fair rental value offset against child support. The fee award was also reversed, and the case was remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Dekker 17 Cal. App. 4th 842 | California Court of Appeal
Court affirmed Pereira apportionment of a corporation's growth to the community, because the husband's efforts drove its value even though he was paid market salary.
SummaryDuring marriage, wife's separate funds capitalized a corporation with $1,000, and its stock was issued only in her name. Husband devoted full time to the business, and an expert valued it at $927,000 at trial. The trial court gave wife her $1,000 plus a 10 percent annual return ($1,934) as separate property and the remaining $925,066 to the community. The court of appeal held that substantial evidence supported applying equitable apportionment and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing Pereira. It also held that judicial estoppel did not bar husband's claim, and it affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re the Marriage of Broderick 209 Cal. App. 3d 489 | California Court of Appeal
A quitclaim deed passes only the community interest accrued to its date; later community loan payments create a Moore interest, so the calculation was remanded.
SummaryWife quitclaimed the family home to husband in 1977. The parties reconciled and later paid the mortgage with community funds from 1980 to 1985. The court held the deed made the home husband's separate property and the deed was not undone by reconciliation, duress, or inadequate consideration. Husband was barred from raising Stoner on appeal because he conceded the Moore formula at trial. The trial court erred by counting community payments made before the deed, so the judgment was reversed in part and remanded to recompute the community interest, and otherwise affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Watts 171 Cal. App. 3d 366 | California Court of Appeal
A professional practice's goodwill cannot be set at zero just because it can't be sold; the court also may reimburse the community for post-separation use.
SummaryThe trial court found the surgeon husband's medical practice had no goodwill at separation, relying on experts who found no market for it, though its own findings showed earnings above comparable surgeon pay. It also held it lacked authority to charge him for exclusive post-separation use of the residence and practice, despite finding 10 percent a fair return. The Court of Appeal reversed both rulings and remanded for goodwill and reimbursement determinations, and affirmed the other issues.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Sullivan 37 Cal. 3d 762 | California Supreme Court
Legislation enacted during the appeal provides for community reimbursement of contributions to a spouse's education; judgment reversed and remanded, fee award affirmed.
SummaryThe husband attended medical school and residency during the marriage while the wife worked. The trial court excluded evidence of the education's value, held it was not community property, and denied any compensation. While the appeal was pending, the Legislature added Civil Code section 4800.3 (community reimbursement for community-property payments toward education or training that substantially enhances earning capacity) and amended section 4801 (support must consider a spouse's contribution to the other's education). The Supreme Court held these provisions applied because the judgment was not final, reversed the denial of compensation and remanded for findings. It affirmed the $1,250 fee and $1,000 cost award, because the trial court could reasonably infer the husband's growing practice would raise his income and could weigh ability to earn rather than current earnings.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Hug 154 Cal. App. 3d 780 | California Court of Appeal
Trial courts have broad discretion to apportion community and separate interests in pre-separation stock options exercisable after separation, and a time rule counting from hire date was upheld.
SummaryPaul's employer granted him stock options before separation that became exercisable in yearly increments, some after separation. The trial court applied a time rule: months from employment start to separation, over months from employment start to first exercisability, times the shares exercisable. It treated that share as community property and the rest as Paul's separate property. The court of appeal held this was not an abuse of discretion because the record supported finding the options were earned from the start of employment, and it affirmed the judgment.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Marsden 130 Cal. App. 3d 426 | California Court of Appeal
Moore/Marsden apportionment credits the separate estate with prenuptial appreciation; untraced stock purchases from commingled accounts stay community property; judgment reversed in part.
SummaryHusband bought a Stanford leasehold and house in 1962 and married in 1971, and community funds later paid down the loan. The court held the trial court miscalculated the community interest by using the 1962 cost rather than the 1971 fair market value, so the Moore/Lucas/Aufmuth formula was adjusted to credit husband with prenuptial appreciation. It also affirmed that stock bought during marriage was community property, because his CPA's year-end worksheet did not trace purchases to specific separate funds, and it held pension benefits are valued at trial or on payment, not at separation. The property division judgment was reversed as to the house and leasehold and the resulting division, and the pension judgment was affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Lucas 27 Cal. 3d 808 | California Supreme Court
A joint-tenancy home bought with mixed funds is presumptively community absent an agreement to the contrary; tracing alone does not rebut it, and reimbursement requires agreement.
SummaryThe spouses bought a home in joint tenancy using $6,351.57 of the wife's separate trust funds for the down payment and a community-obligation loan, and she later paid $2,962 of separate funds for improvements. The trial court awarded her a 75.58 percent separate interest based on tracing and the lack of donative intent. The Supreme Court reversed the residence ruling and remanded: the joint-title community presumption (now section 5110) can be rebutted only by an agreement or understanding between the spouses, not by source of funds or an undisclosed intent. If the home is community, she gets no reimbursement without an agreement. The court affirmed the ruling that the motorhome, titled in the wife's name alone without objection, was her separate property by gift of the husband's small community interest.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Moore 28 Cal.3d 366 | California Supreme Court
Community payments on a separate property mortgage earn the community a pro rata share of the home's appreciation.
SummaryWhere community funds paid down principal on a home one spouse bought before marriage, the community acquires a pro rata interest in the property based on the principal it paid, including a share of appreciation during marriage. Interest, taxes, and insurance payments do not count toward that share.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Epstein 24 Cal. 3d 76 | California Supreme Court
Post-separation separate-fund payments on community debts are generally reimbursable unless they discharged support duties; community funds paying tax on separate income must be reimbursed.
SummaryHusband paid the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the family home from post-separation earnings, and used $2,250 of community funds to pay estimated tax on his separate post-separation income. The Supreme Court held that the no-reimbursement presumption does not apply after separation, so husband may be reimbursed unless the payments in reality discharged his support duty. It remanded that factual question, held the community must be reimbursed for the $2,250, and construed the equalization order to account for capital gains tax on the court-ordered sale of the residence. It affirmed the $750 monthly spousal support amount but reversed the termination of support jurisdiction for lack of evidence the wife would be self-supporting.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Stenquist 21 Cal. 3d 779 | California Supreme Court
Military disability pay is separate property only to the extent it exceeds retirement pay; the retirement-equivalent portion earned during marriage is community property.
SummaryHusband retired after 26 years of Army service, married for most of it, and elected 75 percent disability pay instead of 65 percent retirement pay. The Supreme Court held that the pre-marital portion and the excess of disability pay over the retirement pay he would have received are his separate property, while the retirement-equivalent portion earned during marriage is community property to be divided equally. It affirmed that apportionment (the trial court's formula yielded a one-third share for wife). It reversed the order that ended spousal support jurisdiction after 24 months, because the record only speculated about wife's self-sufficiency, and remanded for reconsideration based on the parties' current income and earning potential.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Skaden 19 Cal. 3d 679 | California Supreme Court
Vested but unmatured insurance agent termination benefits are deferred compensation and community property to the extent earned during marriage; judgment reversed and remanded.
SummaryThe spouses married in 1961 and separated in 1973. Gary had been a State Farm agent since 1965 under an agreement that paid termination benefits, as installments over up to five years, if it ended after two years or more, subject to conditions such as returning company property and not competing. The trial court called the benefits a mere expectancy of no value and awarded them to Gary as separate property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the benefits were vested but immature deferred compensation, divisible as community property to the extent of their community character, and remanded for the trial court to choose between present valuation and reserving jurisdiction.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Dawley 17 Cal. 3d 342 | California Supreme Court
Antenuptial agreement making earnings separate property is valid unless its terms promote dissolution; it governed characterization of the boat. Affirmed.
SummaryBefore marrying, the parties agreed that each spouse's earnings and property acquired by purchase would be separate property. After about eight years of marriage, the wife challenged the agreement as against public policy, as procured by undue influence, and as impliedly rescinded, and she claimed a community interest in a sloop. The husband paid the down payment and every loan payment from separate funds, but both spouses signed the credit union loan and took title. The court held that the agreement was valid because its terms did not promote dissolution, that substantial evidence supported the findings of no undue influence and no rescission, and that the sloop was the husband's separate property. The judgment was affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Bouquet 16 Cal. 3d 583 | California Supreme Court
Amended Civil Code section 5118, making each spouse's post-separation earnings separate property, applies retroactively to property rights not yet finally adjudicated; reversed and remanded.
SummaryThe spouses separated in March 1969, and Wife petitioned for dissolution in 1971. Civil Code section 5118 was amended in March 1972, before the interlocutory judgment, to make both spouses' post-separation earnings separate property. The trial court treated the husband's earnings as separate only from the amendment's effective date. The Supreme Court held the amendment applies retroactively to all property rights not finally adjudicated by a judgment whose appeal time has lapsed, and that this does not unconstitutionally deprive the wife of vested property rights. It reversed and remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Brown 15 Cal. 3d 838 | California Supreme Court
Nonvested pension rights are a community property interest to the extent earned during marriage, and trial courts may divide them on dissolution.
SummaryThe parties married in 1950 and separated in 1973. The husband had 72 of the 78 points needed to vest under his employer's noncontributory pension plan. The trial court, following French v. French, held the nonvested pension was not community property and did not divide it. The Supreme Court overruled French, held that nonvested pension rights are a contingent property interest and community property to the extent they derive from employment during marriage, and reversed and remanded. On remand the trial court is also to redetermine the stock purchase plan and shares.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Mix 14 Cal.3d 604 | California Supreme Court
Separate property in a commingled account can be proven by direct tracing to specific deposits and withdrawals.
SummaryThe court approved direct tracing as a way to keep separate character through a commingled account. Where records identify separate funds deposited and show those funds were used for a specific acquisition, the property keeps its separate character even though community funds passed through the same account.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
See v. See 64 Cal.2d 778 | California Supreme Court
A spouse who commingles funds must trace separate property; family expenses are presumed paid from community funds.
SummaryThe court held that a spouse claiming separate property in a commingled account must trace it, and that family living expenses are presumed paid from community income. Separate property can be shown by proving community funds were exhausted by family expenses when the disputed acquisition was made, but a general recapitulation over the whole marriage is not enough.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Van Camp v. Van Camp 53 Cal.App. 17 | California Court of Appeal
Where business growth comes mainly from the capital itself, the community gets reasonable compensation for the spouse's work.
SummaryThe court treated the growth of a husband's separate property business as mostly separate property because it came from the character of the business rather than his personal efforts. The community was credited with the reasonable value of his services, less the family expenses already paid from business earnings.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Pereira v. Pereira 156 Cal. 1 | California Supreme Court
Where a spouse's personal effort grows a separate property business, the community gets a share of the growth.
SummaryThe court allocated the increase in value of a husband's separate property business by giving the separate estate a fair return on its capital and treating the remaining growth as community property, because the growth came mainly from the husband's personal efforts during marriage.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion.
Income available for support
How courts measure income for child and spousal support, including imputed income, earning capacity, and non-wage sources.
-
Marriage of Traweek No. B336738 | California Court of Appeal
A spouse convicted of domestic violence can rebut section 4325's bar on support using section 4320 factors, including earning capacity and marketable skills.
SummaryCandice was convicted of domestic violence against Scott and was under a DVRO. The marriage lasted 18 years, she had not worked since its start, and she had no current marketable skills. The trial court found the presumption rebutted, citing those 4320 findings and Scott's post-DVRO flirtation and contact with her. It awarded $4,000 a month through October 2029, with no retroactive support and no Ostler-Smith share of Scott's overtime, which ran at least $3,000 a month. The Court of Appeal held section 4325(b)'s "any other factors" language lets the court weigh section 4320 factors, and it affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of R.M. and P.N. No. D086317 | California Court of Appeal
IHSS payments a parent receives for caring for her disabled child are gross income for child support, and the court need not impute income from uncertain assets.
SummaryMother was paid about $6,160 a month in IHSS wages for caring for her disabled adult daughter, and the trial court counted that as income in guideline support. The court of appeal held the needs-based public assistance exclusion in section 4058(c) did not apply, because the daughter's need set eligibility and Mother was a paid provider who submitted timesheets. It also held the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to impute income from Father's claimed $400,000 in crypto, collectible cars, and real estate, given his testimony about liquidity and the lack of evidence on values. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Freeman No. G064552 | California Court of Appeal
Under Moore/Marsden, the community's percentage freezes at separation, but the property is valued near trial under section 2552. Affirmed.
SummaryHub bought a rental property in 1992 and paid it off in 2013. The trial court found a 60.2 percent community interest from principal paydown and improvements, valued the property at $2.1 million using Rod's appraiser as of February 2022, and imputed $5,400 a month to Rod before setting $2,100 a month in permanent support. The court held that Hub confused two numbers: the community percentage is fixed at separation, while value is set as near to trial as practicable under section 2552. It also held the support award was within the trial court's discretion, and affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Nevai and Klemunes No. C086584 | California Court of Appeal
A community that gets a Moore/Marsden share of appreciation cannot also recover mortgage interest and property taxes; permanent spousal support cannot rest on a DissoMaster figure.
SummaryWife's pre-marital Tahoe cabin was paid from a joint account, and the community used it. The expert's Moore/Marsden propertizer was upheld, including mortgage balances estimated from 1098 forms and a $7,000 improvement figure. But the $176,951 reimbursement for interest and taxes was error because the community already shared in appreciation and was never charged for its use of the property. The $3,584 permanent support award was reversed because it tracked the temporary DissoMaster figure ($3,673) with no sign the court weighed the section 4320 factors. Reversed on the interest and tax reimbursement, the equalization payment, the permanent support award, and the fee order. Affirmed otherwise.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Minkin 11 Cal. App. 5th 939 | California Court of Appeal
'Annual bonus' in an Ostler/Smith-type support clause means discretionary, performance-based pay, not all pay above base salary; order affirmed.
SummaryThe parties' 2004 stipulated judgment gave the wife 41 percent of the husband's 'annual bonus' as additional spousal support. After he changed jobs to a multi-component compensation package, she claimed all pay above base salary counted, roughly $700,000, while he paid only on the incentive plan and part of a long-term plan. The court held the undefined term was ambiguous, upheld the trial court's reading as discretionary performance-based payments supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed an arrearage of about $200,000. It also affirmed the reduced fee award and the denial of reinstated monthly support after the agreed term expired.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Schleich 8 Cal. App. 5th 267 | California Court of Appeal
Section 1101 asset penalties apply only to undisclosed community property, and cannot be stacked on the same asset in the property division.
SummaryHusband hid separate brokerage accounts ($133,763, of which only $25,800 was community), $164,614 of side business income spent before separation, and a $200,000 community loan mostly repaid before separation. The court held that nondisclosure of separate property or of income already spent is not a section 1101 breach, though section 2107 sanctions still apply. It also held that a 50 or 100 percent award under section 1101 replaces the same share in the property division, so the trial court's double counting had to be removed. It upheld permanent spousal support of $6,000, then $2,600 a month, which rested on a 3 percent return imputed to Husband's liquid assets plus his self-employment capacity. The judgment was reversed in part, cutting the section 1101 award by $327,357 and the equalizing payment by $48,950, and the fee award was remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of McLain 7 Cal. App. 5th 262 | California Court of Appeal
A retired supported spouse past 65 need not be imputed income, and a handwritten note plus vague testimony does not trace separate property.
SummaryBoth spouses retired in 2005. Wife, 66, had $746 a month in Social Security, Husband had about $10,000 a month in retirement income, and the court awarded $4,000 a month in support without imputing income to Wife. Husband sought Section 2640 reimbursement for about $412,787 of separate funds (San Dimas sale proceeds and a 401A) put into a $507,700 house, backed only by his handwritten note and Wife's testimony that "some of it" was used. The court held that retirement past age 65 could outweigh the self-support goal, that tracing requires documentary proof, and that the tracing failed because the money was commingled in joint accounts and more funds were available than the house cost. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Usher 6 Cal. App. 5th 347 | California Court of Appeal
A drop in a wealthy parent's salary is not a material change if assets cover the support, and a 1% imputed return lacked evidence.
SummaryThe father agreed to $17,500 monthly child support. He later sought a reduction because his employment income fell, although he held over $67 million in assets, including about $34 million in liquid funds. The trial court cut support to $9,842 and imputed a 1% return to most of his assets. The Court of Appeal held that no substantial evidence showed a material change in his ability to pay and that the 1% rate was unsupported, so the order was reversed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Hall & Frencher 247 Cal. App. 4th 23 | California Court of Appeal
Social Security derivative benefits for a child credit current support first, then arrears principal, then interest, under current Family Code 4504.
SummaryThe father was ordered to pay $8.50 a month in child support. Social Security was paying the mother $960 a month in derivative benefits for the child, and the family court left $11,083.84 in arrears because it would not apply the excess to arrears that predated the benefits (2007 to July 2011). The Court of Appeal held that the amended Family Code section 4504(b) requires credit to current support, then arrears principal, then accrued interest, and it declined to follow Robinson, which rested on the older statutory wording. The arrears figure was reversed and remanded for recalculation, and the rest of the judgment was affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Smith 242 Cal. App. 4th 529 | California Court of Appeal
Regular parental payments of legal fees, even documented as loans against inheritance, may be treated as income in a section 2030 fee analysis.
SummaryKierstin's father paid close to $400,000 of her legal bills. The payments were papered as promissory notes, but he expected repayment, if ever, only as an offset against a roughly $6 million inheritance, and she had repaid almost nothing. Mark and Cindy(Mark's current wife) were financing their legal fees on credit cards. The court held the trial court could treat those regular payments as Kierstin's income when comparing the parties' circumstances (relying on Alter and Williamson), and it distinguished Schulze as a single small loan. The court did not reach section 271 sanctions, and the fee awards of $124,352 to Cindy and $151,967 to Mark were affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Cecilia and David W. 241 Cal. App. 4th 1277 | California Court of Appeal
Section 3910 adult child support requires proof the child cannot find work or support himself, not just a diagnosis.
SummaryMother sought support for her 24-year-old son, who has Tourette's and ADHD, attends UCSD full time, and receives about $30,000 a year in financial aid. The trial court found him incapacitated partly because he could not work and attend school at once, and found insufficient means because his aid depended on enrollment and minimum wage work would not match his parents' standard of living. The Court of Appeal held those were the wrong tests: the questions are whether he cannot be self-supporting or find work for reasons beyond his control, and whether he is likely to become a public charge. It found no substantial evidence on either point, since his psychologist said he could work and no vocational evaluation was done. Reversed and remanded for the trial court to apply the correct standards.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Alter 171 Cal.App.4th 718 | California Court of Appeal
Regular, recurring gifts can count as income for child support.
SummaryThe court held that regular monetary gifts a parent received from a family member could be treated as income for child support, because they were recurring and could reasonably be expected to continue.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Ackerman 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744 | California Court of Appeal
Court affirmed a plastic surgery practice valuation using excess earnings and an imputed-income spousal support order with step-downs, finding no abuse of discretion.
SummaryHusband's plastic surgery practice was valued as of the date of separation using excess earnings. Each side's expert used a different compensation survey, and the trial court set reasonable compensation at $544,000 using its own judgment, with the surgical center treated as part of the practice. The trial court also set spousal support with step-downs, imputing $3,000 monthly earning capacity and a 4.3 to 4.5 percent return on assets to wife, and used the guideline formula for child support. The Court of Appeal affirmed both judgments under the abuse of discretion and substantial evidence standards.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Riddle 125 Cal.App.4th 1075 | California Court of Appeal
Income for support should be measured over a period that reflects actual earnings, usually about a year.
SummaryThe court reversed a support order based on a short, unrepresentative window of a commissioned earner's income, holding that the measuring period should fairly reflect actual earnings, which ordinarily means about 12 months unless unusual circumstances justify another period.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Leonard 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 | California Court of Appeal
Denying retroactivity of a child support reduction after job loss is good cause when the children's needs and obligor's resources support it; affirmed.
SummaryMark, a software salesman earning about $189,000, was involuntarily laid off and moved to reduce child support from $2,223 to $423 per month, retroactive to service of the motion. The trial court granted the reduction but made it effective only on the hearing date, citing Mark's other resources and the children's needs. The Sixth District held that good cause under Family Code section 3653(b) requires a good faith finding based on real circumstances and substantial reasons, balancing the children's needs against the obligor's ability to pay. It found the reasons about Mark's resources and the children's needs supported by the record, found 'equitable' and Padilla too general or inapplicable, and affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Wittgrove 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 489 | California Court of Appeal
Court affirmed temporary child and spousal support for a high earner: no rebuttal of guideline, no proof for imputing income, status quo lifestyle supported the award.
SummaryAlan, a surgeon earning about $1.7 to $2.1 million, was ordered to pay $13,488 monthly guideline child support and $30,000 monthly temporary spousal support to Perri, a physician with fluctuating income. Alan argued the high-income exception applied, that more income should be imputed to Perri, and that the total exceeded the children's needs and the status quo. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion: Alan offered no evidence to rebut the guideline presumption or to show Perri had both the ability and opportunity to earn the income he sought to impute, and the $200,000 figure used for her income was offered by her counsel and favored him.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Destein 91 Cal.App.4th 1385 | California Court of Appeal
A court may impute a reasonable rate of return on investment assets that produce little income.
SummaryThe court upheld imputing income to a parent who held substantial assets in investments producing little current income, finding the trial court could assign a reasonable rate of return to those assets when setting child support.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Schulze 60 Cal. App. 4th 519 | California Court of Appeal
Permanent spousal support must be set from the section 4320 factors, not temporary guidelines, and imputed employer benefits count as taxable income.
SummaryA father working for his parents' company had actual wages of $6,628 per month. The trial court added $1,100 in imputed income for a below-market condo rent and a company car, labeled it "nontaxable," and ordered family support of $4,780, over 83 percent of his after-tax income. The spousal component nearly matched the DissoMaster's temporary support figure. The court upheld including the benefits as employee-benefit income under section 4058 but held that treating them as nontaxable was error. It also held that using the temporary support figure as the baseline for permanent spousal support was error. It reversed and remanded for recalculation, and also reversed the $5,000 sanction and the lump-sum fee order.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Hinman 55 Cal. App. 4th 988 | California Court of Appeal
Bad faith is not required to impute earning capacity for child support; ability and opportunity to work suffice. Order affirmed.
SummaryHoward, the custodial parent of four minor children, sought child support from Aisha, who reported zero income and said she was caring for three young children from a new relationship. The trial court imputed $3,200 per month based on her computer science degrees, work history, and employment agency letters estimating $35,000 to $50,000 in annual earning potential, and ordered $1,248 monthly support. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Family Code section 4058(b) does not require a bad faith or unreasonable-failure finding before earning capacity is considered, and that her challenges to the support computation were waived because she did not raise them below.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Drake 53 Cal. App. 4th 1139 | California Court of Appeal
Child support guidelines apply to disabled adult children, and the trial court may place a surrogate trust's income on the custodial side of the formula.
SummaryAfter the custodial mother died, her successors in interest, the trustees of a trust she created for the couple's disabled adult son, continued her petition to increase child support from the father, who had about $15,000 in monthly gross income. The court held the Family Code guideline formula applies to adult children. It upheld treating the trust's income as if the trust were the second parent in the formula, charging the son's $474 monthly Social Security disability benefits to the custodial side instead of giving the father a direct credit, and ordering retroactive support. The court also affirmed the security order, attorney fees and sanctions, and affirmed all orders.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Braud 45 Cal. App. 4th 797 | California Court of Appeal
Separate property tracing through a commingled account failed without records, while a deferred-sale home order and rental-value support offset were upheld; partly reversed and remanded.
SummaryDaniel inherited funds and used them to pay off the mortgage on the family home, claim $10,000 for improvements, and withdraw $25,000 from an account that became joint. The court affirmed the $20,734 separate property finding on the withdrawal, where bank records showed the deposits and the community funds were exhausted by living expenses. It reversed the $10,000 improvement reimbursement because Daniel had no records of the amounts spent or of the commingled account's deposits and balances. It also held the trial court could award a percentage interest instead of a fixed reimbursement sum on a deferred sale, and affirmed the 50 percent net fair rental value offset against child support. The fee award was also reversed, and the case was remanded.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Olson 14 Cal. App. 4th 1 | California Court of Appeal
A special master cannot make binding income findings for spousal support absent stipulation, and courts have broad discretion to count or exclude undrawn retirement plan accruals as income.
SummaryAfter 30 years of marriage, the payor sought to reduce spousal support as his income fell and fluctuated. He held over $400,000 in IRAs, annuities and other savings. The trial court appointed an accountant as special master to determine each party's monthly income, business expenses and tax adjustments and to run a default support computer program, counting retirement funds as income only when withdrawn. The Court of Appeal held that delegating these findings was an improper delegation of judicial authority, but upheld use of the program on these facts and held courts have broad discretion over undrawn retirement contributions and accruals. It reversed and remanded, including for a determination of appellate attorney fees.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re the Marriage of Smith 225 Cal. App. 3d 469 | California Court of Appeal
Upward support modification requires showing prior inadequacy or increased need; marital standard of living is a general reference point, not a mandatory measure.
SummaryWife sought to raise spousal support from $1,700 to $7,317 a month to match the marital lifestyle, based on her own projected expenses and Husband's much higher income. The trial court found the family had lived beyond its means because Husband worked excessive hours, found no evidence of a reasonable marital standard, and raised support to $3,300 based on increased needs. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the moving party must show the prior order was inadequate or that needs increased, and then the obligor's ability to pay, and that the marital standard of living is a general reference point weighed with the other statutory factors.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re the Marriage of Ostler & Smith 223 Cal. App. 3d 33 | California Court of Appeal
A trial court may order spousal and child support as a fixed amount plus a percentage of future bonuses; the order was affirmed.
SummaryHusband, a bank executive, earned a fixed salary plus large, variable annual bonuses and stock dividends. The trial court set fixed spousal and child support from salary and dividends, then added 15% of his gross cash bonus as spousal support and 10% per child as child support, with a three-year spousal support step-down. The Court of Appeal held this was within the trial court's discretion under the support statutes and affirmed. It declined to consider his guideline argument because he had not raised it at trial.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Regnery 214 Cal.App.3d 1367 | California Court of Appeal
Imputing income based on earning capacity requires ability and opportunity to earn it.
SummaryThe court held that before income can be imputed to a parent based on earning capacity, there must be evidence of both the ability to work, including qualifications and health, and the opportunity to work, meaning an employer willing to hire.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re the Marriage of Gavron 203 Cal. App. 3d 705 | California Court of Appeal
Terminating spousal support for the wife's failure to become self-supporting was an abuse of discretion without a material change in circumstances or prior warning.
SummaryAfter a 25-year marriage, the husband sought to end $1,100 monthly spousal support set in 1979. The trial court stepped support down to zero because the unemployed 57-year-old wife had not sought work or training, and it shifted the burden to her to show continued need. The Court of Appeal reversed. It found no material change in either spouse's circumstances since the prior order, held that the burden stayed on the husband, and found nothing showing she had been warned she was expected to become self-sufficient. It directed reinstatement of the 1979 support order.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Hoffmeister 191 Cal. App. 3d 351 | California Court of Appeal
A spousal support increase based on the payor's higher income requires proof of unmet needs at the marital standard of living; assumptions fail. Reversed.
SummaryAfter about 23 years of marriage, the wife moved to raise spousal support from $1,500 to $2,500 and extend it indefinitely. The husband stipulated that he could pay. The trial court assumed the original judge had set support below her needs and made no finding on the marital standard of living. The Court of Appeal held that these assumptions were unsupported, that her expense declarations were largely estimates and were undercut by her savings and omitted accounts, and that she had not shown unmet needs tied to the marital standard of living. It reversed the increase, the extension of duration, and the attorney's fee award, and remanded. It denied the wife's request for sanctions.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Sullivan 37 Cal. 3d 762 | California Supreme Court
Legislation enacted during the appeal provides for community reimbursement of contributions to a spouse's education; judgment reversed and remanded, fee award affirmed.
SummaryThe husband attended medical school and residency during the marriage while the wife worked. The trial court excluded evidence of the education's value, held it was not community property, and denied any compensation. While the appeal was pending, the Legislature added Civil Code section 4800.3 (community reimbursement for community-property payments toward education or training that substantially enhances earning capacity) and amended section 4801 (support must consider a spouse's contribution to the other's education). The Supreme Court held these provisions applied because the judgment was not final, reversed the denial of compensation and remanded for findings. It affirmed the $1,250 fee and $1,000 cost award, because the trial court could reasonably infer the husband's growing practice would raise his income and could weigh ability to earn rather than current earnings.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Flaherty 31 Cal. 3d 637 | California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court affirmed denial of child support against a part-time-working mother, finding no abuse of discretion where the record lacked evidence of her full-time earnings.
SummaryFather, who had custody, sought child support from mother, who earned $398 gross monthly and testified she worked part time by choice and could work full time. The trial court denied support and split transportation costs, and neither party requested findings. The Supreme Court affirmed: earning capacity may be considered, but father showed no sex-biased standard was applied, and without findings or evidence of her hours or full-time pay the court presumed it weighed her capacity. The court also held the appeal was not frivolous and set due process requirements for appellate sanctions.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Epstein 24 Cal. 3d 76 | California Supreme Court
Post-separation separate-fund payments on community debts are generally reimbursable unless they discharged support duties; community funds paying tax on separate income must be reimbursed.
SummaryHusband paid the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the family home from post-separation earnings, and used $2,250 of community funds to pay estimated tax on his separate post-separation income. The Supreme Court held that the no-reimbursement presumption does not apply after separation, so husband may be reimbursed unless the payments in reality discharged his support duty. It remanded that factual question, held the community must be reimbursed for the $2,250, and construed the equalization order to account for capital gains tax on the court-ordered sale of the residence. It affirmed the $750 monthly spousal support amount but reversed the termination of support jurisdiction for lack of evidence the wife would be self-supporting.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Stenquist 21 Cal. 3d 779 | California Supreme Court
Military disability pay is separate property only to the extent it exceeds retirement pay; the retirement-equivalent portion earned during marriage is community property.
SummaryHusband retired after 26 years of Army service, married for most of it, and elected 75 percent disability pay instead of 65 percent retirement pay. The Supreme Court held that the pre-marital portion and the excess of disability pay over the retirement pay he would have received are his separate property, while the retirement-equivalent portion earned during marriage is community property to be divided equally. It affirmed that apportionment (the trial court's formula yielded a one-third share for wife). It reversed the order that ended spousal support jurisdiction after 24 months, because the record only speculated about wife's self-sufficiency, and remanded for reconsideration based on the parties' current income and earning potential.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Morrison 20 Cal. 3d 437 | California Supreme Court
After a long marriage, a court should not end spousal support jurisdiction without record evidence the supported spouse will be self-supporting by then.
SummaryAfter a 28-year marriage, the wife had no job skills, earned about $100 a month part time, and had health problems. The husband netted about $1,456 a month from salary and a military pension. The trial court awarded $400 a month for eight years, then reserved jurisdiction for three years, then ended support absolutely. The Supreme Court held that ending jurisdiction at 11 years was an abuse of discretion because nothing in the record showed she would be self-supporting. It found no abuse of discretion in the $400 amount, since the parties' combined income could not fully fund two households. It reversed the judgment and remanded, directing the trial court to adjudicate the wife's interest in the husband's nonvested pension and to consider the husband's argument that the promissory note he received was worth less than face value.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion.
Business valuation
Valuing businesses and professional practices in dissolution, including goodwill and the methods courts accept.
-
Marriage of Freeman No. G064552 | California Court of Appeal
Under Moore/Marsden, the community's percentage freezes at separation, but the property is valued near trial under section 2552. Affirmed.
SummaryHub bought a rental property in 1992 and paid it off in 2013. The trial court found a 60.2 percent community interest from principal paydown and improvements, valued the property at $2.1 million using Rod's appraiser as of February 2022, and imputed $5,400 a month to Rod before setting $2,100 a month in permanent support. The court held that Hub confused two numbers: the community percentage is fixed at separation, while value is set as near to trial as practicable under section 2552. It also held the support award was within the trial court's discretion, and affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Simonis No. C095193 | California Court of Appeal
A spouse who commingles after separation must trace each debt payment; an aggregate comparison of assets held versus debts paid fails, and the commingled mass is community.
SummaryAlan held the community cash, 2015 crop income, and cattle for five years after separation. He mixed them with his own funds and paid community debts from the mix. He claimed reimbursement by comparing total debts paid to total community assets held. The court held that See v. See's rejection of aggregate tracing applies after separation, so he had to use direct tracing or a time-specific recapitulation showing community funds were exhausted when each payment was made. Without that, the commingled herds and funds were community and he got no credit. Division is valued near trial under section 2552, not at the separation date, absent a noticed motion. Affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Marriage of Brandes 239 Cal.App.4th 1461 | California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
Radical growth in pre-marriage business does not transmute it to community property; hybrid Pereira/Van Camp allocation upheld. Family living expense tracing established $120M deficit, proving separate property funded expansion. Lender's intent doctrine reversed treatment of shares purchased by promissory note.
SummaryLandmark decision establishing that a separate property business retains its character despite extraordinary growth (BIP grew from $20M to $85.7B in assets under management during the marriage). Court upheld hybrid Pereira/Van Camp allocation methodology, with each spouse's personal efforts driving growth in different periods. Family living expense tracing demonstrated that community income of approximately $50M fell short of documented family expenses of approximately $151M, creating a $120M deficit that necessarily came from separate property. Critical holding on lender's intent doctrine: the spouse claiming separate property must prove the lender relied on separate property sources, not just general business reputation. Court reversed trial court's treatment of 6,000 shares purchased via promissory note, finding the lender's intent doctrine created an unrebutted presumption of community property for the note-financed portion.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Ackerman 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744 | California Court of Appeal
Court affirmed a plastic surgery practice valuation using excess earnings and an imputed-income spousal support order with step-downs, finding no abuse of discretion.
SummaryHusband's plastic surgery practice was valued as of the date of separation using excess earnings. Each side's expert used a different compensation survey, and the trial court set reasonable compensation at $544,000 using its own judgment, with the surgical center treated as part of the practice. The trial court also set spousal support with step-downs, imputing $3,000 monthly earning capacity and a 4.3 to 4.5 percent return on assets to wife, and used the guideline formula for child support. The Court of Appeal affirmed both judgments under the abuse of discretion and substantial evidence standards.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of McTiernan & Dubrow 133 Cal.App.4th 1090 | California Court of Appeal
Goodwill must belong to a business; personal reputation alone is not divisible goodwill.
SummaryThe court held that a film director's personal skill and reputation did not create community property goodwill, because goodwill exists only as an asset of a business and the director did not operate one.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Rosen 105 Cal.App.4th 808 | California Court of Appeal
A goodwill value built on a flawed excess earnings calculation cannot stand.
SummaryThe court reversed a goodwill valuation of a professional practice because the expert's capitalization of excess earnings method was misapplied, and emphasized that goodwill must be supported by earnings in excess of what a comparable professional would earn.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Duncan 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833 | California Court of Appeal
Court affirmed valuing a key-person investment advisory firm at date of separation and refusing a speculative discount for a hypothetical employment contract.
SummaryDuncan-Hurst, an investment advisory firm run by William, was found to be community property, and the trial court valued it at the date of separation under Family Code section 2552(b) because its value came largely from William's skill and track record. It adopted the defense expert's comparable private-company sales approach ($25.5 million, community share $19.8 million) but refused his 66.7 percent discount for a hypothetical long-term employment contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed the valuation date, the method, and the denial of Carol's attorney fee request, finding no abuse of discretion.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Varner 55 Cal. App. 4th 128 | California Court of Appeal
Failing to disclose the existence or value of community assets lets the other spouse set aside a stipulated judgment for mistake.
SummaryHusband testified that Varner Construction was worth about zero and Pipeline Specialties was worth negative $300,000, and the unrepresented wife then signed a stipulated division. Her later preliminary appraisal put Varner Construction at $2,000,000 to $2,750,000 and Pipeline at $300,000 to $600,000, and husband's own earlier figures to her first accountant, his loan applications, and his own appraiser all ran higher than his trial testimony. The court held that nondisclosure of the existence or value of a community asset is a mistake ground for setting aside a stipulated judgment under Family Code 2122(e), and it rejected husband's claim that the business was premarital separate property because the only evidence of his premarital assets was an earth mover listed in his prior divorce judgment. Reversed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Nichols 27 Cal. App. 4th 661 | California Court of Appeal
A trial court did not abuse its discretion by valuing a law firm shareholder interest under the buy-sell agreement, which excluded receivables and work in progress.
SummaryHusband held about 2.677 percent of his law firm. Wife's expert valued the interest at $142,000 using book value that included receivables and work in progress, while husband's expert applied the stock purchase agreement, which excludes those items, and reached $11,347. The trial court adopted the agreement value, except that it found goodwill separately (stipulated at $35,000). The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the valuation and finding husband's protective cross-appeal on spousal support and fees moot.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Dekker 17 Cal. App. 4th 842 | California Court of Appeal
Court affirmed Pereira apportionment of a corporation's growth to the community, because the husband's efforts drove its value even though he was paid market salary.
SummaryDuring marriage, wife's separate funds capitalized a corporation with $1,000, and its stock was issued only in her name. Husband devoted full time to the business, and an expert valued it at $927,000 at trial. The trial court gave wife her $1,000 plus a 10 percent annual return ($1,934) as separate property and the remaining $925,066 to the community. The court of appeal held that substantial evidence supported applying equitable apportionment and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing Pereira. It also held that judicial estoppel did not bar husband's claim, and it affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Watts 171 Cal. App. 3d 366 | California Court of Appeal
A professional practice's goodwill cannot be set at zero just because it can't be sold; the court also may reimburse the community for post-separation use.
SummaryThe trial court found the surgeon husband's medical practice had no goodwill at separation, relying on experts who found no market for it, though its own findings showed earnings above comparable surgeon pay. It also held it lacked authority to charge him for exclusive post-separation use of the residence and practice, despite finding 10 percent a fair return. The Court of Appeal reversed both rulings and remanded for goodwill and reimbursement determinations, and affirmed the other issues.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Hug 154 Cal. App. 3d 780 | California Court of Appeal
Trial courts have broad discretion to apportion community and separate interests in pre-separation stock options exercisable after separation, and a time rule counting from hire date was upheld.
SummaryPaul's employer granted him stock options before separation that became exercisable in yearly increments, some after separation. The trial court applied a time rule: months from employment start to separation, over months from employment start to first exercisability, times the shares exercisable. It treated that share as community property and the rest as Paul's separate property. The court of appeal held this was not an abuse of discretion because the record supported finding the options were earned from the start of employment, and it affirmed the judgment.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Marsden 130 Cal. App. 3d 426 | California Court of Appeal
Moore/Marsden apportionment credits the separate estate with prenuptial appreciation; untraced stock purchases from commingled accounts stay community property; judgment reversed in part.
SummaryHusband bought a Stanford leasehold and house in 1962 and married in 1971, and community funds later paid down the loan. The court held the trial court miscalculated the community interest by using the 1962 cost rather than the 1971 fair market value, so the Moore/Lucas/Aufmuth formula was adjusted to credit husband with prenuptial appreciation. It also affirmed that stock bought during marriage was community property, because his CPA's year-end worksheet did not trace purchases to specific separate funds, and it held pension benefits are valued at trial or on payment, not at separation. The property division judgment was reversed as to the house and leasehold and the resulting division, and the pension judgment was affirmed.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Connolly 23 Cal. 3d 590 | California Supreme Court
Spouse in an adversarial dissolution owed no duty to volunteer publicly available information about community stock value; the trial court's $7.50 per share valuation was upheld.
SummaryThe parties stipulated to a May 17, 1976 valuation date for 10,000 shares of a not-yet-public company. The court valued the shares at $7.50 each and awarded them to husband, a director, in exchange for a $37,500 note to wife. The company went public about three months later at roughly $27.50 per share, and wife sought to vacate the judgment under CCP 473, alleging husband concealed the planned offering. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial. It held that husband had no duty to disclose because the offering was publicly reported and the parties were adversaries. It also held that substantial evidence supported the $7.50 value, which was the midpoint of $5 to $10 private trades and the company's own $10 ceiling for option pricing.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Skaden 19 Cal. 3d 679 | California Supreme Court
Vested but unmatured insurance agent termination benefits are deferred compensation and community property to the extent earned during marriage; judgment reversed and remanded.
SummaryThe spouses married in 1961 and separated in 1973. Gary had been a State Farm agent since 1965 under an agreement that paid termination benefits, as installments over up to five years, if it ended after two years or more, subject to conditions such as returning company property and not competing. The trial court called the benefits a mere expectancy of no value and awarded them to Gary as separate property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the benefits were vested but immature deferred compensation, divisible as community property to the extent of their community character, and remanded for the trial court to choose between present valuation and reserving jurisdiction.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In Re Marriage of Fonstein 17 Cal. 3d 738 | California Supreme Court
A trial court may not discount a community law partnership interest for speculative future taxes when the spouse is not withdrawing; reversed and remanded.
SummaryHarold's law partnership interest was community property, and the trial court valued it at the present value of his contractual withdrawal payments. It then cut that figure from $110,417 to $49,977 for estimated income taxes he would owe if he ever withdrew. The Supreme Court held that was error because no taxable event had occurred or was shown to be coming, and the court upheld the use of the 8 percent equity figure and rejected Harold's argument that the interest was a mere expectancy. It reversed the property division and remanded for revaluation without tax consequences and a readjusted division.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
In re Marriage of Lopez 38 Cal.App.3d 93 | California Court of Appeal
Sets out the factors courts weigh when valuing goodwill in a professional practice.
SummaryThe court held that goodwill in a professional practice is community property to the extent it developed during marriage, and listed factors to consider in valuing it, including the professional's age, health, skill, reputation, and the practice's demonstrated earning power.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Van Camp v. Van Camp 53 Cal.App. 17 | California Court of Appeal
Where business growth comes mainly from the capital itself, the community gets reasonable compensation for the spouse's work.
SummaryThe court treated the growth of a husband's separate property business as mostly separate property because it came from the character of the business rather than his personal efforts. The community was credited with the reasonable value of his services, less the family expenses already paid from business earnings.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion. -
Pereira v. Pereira 156 Cal. 1 | California Supreme Court
Where a spouse's personal effort grows a separate property business, the community gets a share of the growth.
SummaryThe court allocated the increase in value of a husband's separate property business by giving the separate estate a fair return on its capital and treating the remaining growth as community property, because the growth came mainly from the husband's personal efforts during marriage.Click the case name for the full note and a link to the opinion.