In re Marriage of McLain

Summary

Both 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.

What it means for the financial analysis

On support, retirement history and the marital standard of living can defeat imputation when the supported spouse is past 65, so an income analysis should document actual retirement dates and the lack of available work. On tracing, a summary note prepared by a party is not a trace. Bank statements, closing statements, and account-level schedules are needed to show separate dollars entering the joint account and funding the construction draws. Where separate and community funds in the account together exceed the project cost, as they did here, the expert has to show which dollars paid which costs, or the claim will fail.

Also available on CourtListener.