Family Law & Mediation - The 40 Most Important CA Family Law Cases
Property Division | Community Property | Child Custody & Visitation | Spousal Support | Retirement | Other
Property Division
Aufmuth, In re Marriage of (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 152 Cal.Rptr. 668.
Post separation increase in the value of community property shares of corporate stock from the company employing the earning spouse who is not the sole shareholder is not separate property earnings of the earning spouse.
» Click here for full text version
Tammen, In re Marriage of (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 927, 134 Cal.Rptr. 161
A promissory note executed and delivered to a spouse to equalize property division is not an equal division of property. Due to the inherent nature of such a note the face value would be discounted due to the probable effect of inflation upon it and concerns of ownership such as possibilities of foreclosure by senior deeds of trust, tax liens and other liens.
» Click here for full text version
Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17, 199 P. 885
When a separate property business is operated during marriage, the community is entitled to fair compensation for the labor, skill and effort put forth in running the business, any remaining increase in the value of the separate property business is separate property.
» Click here for full text version
Watts, In re Marriage of (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 366, 217 Cal.Rptr. 301
A spouse who maintains exclusive use of the family home and exclusive use of a community property business may be ordered to reimburse the community for said exclusive use from the date of separation to trial.
» Click here for full text version
Olson, In re Marriage of (1980) 27 Cal.3d 414, 165 Cal.Rptr. 820, 612 P.2d 910
Where an asset is lost to foreclosure before entry of judgment, it would be error not to reopen the case after trial in order to re-divide the assets.
» Click here for full text version
Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1, 103 P. 488
In a separate property business, the value attributable to the community is the balance of value after the spouse who owns the separate-property business obtains a fair return from it.
» Click here for full text version
Mix, In re Marriage of (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 122 Cal.Rptr. 79, 536 P.2d 479
The California Supreme Court clarified that tracing of separate property used to purchase an asset is essential to characterization of separate property at divorce.
» Click here for full text version
Rosen, In re Marriage of (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 808, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 1
The valuation of the goodwill of a party’s business may not be based on income from only one year.
» Click here for full text version
Duke, In re Marriage of (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 152, 161 Cal.Rptr. 444.
Court of Appeal holds that trial court must balance the significant emotional, economic and social impacts to the family unit of an immediate sale of the family residence against foreseeable detriment to the noncustodial spouse on a deferred sale. [See Family Code Sections to 3800 to 3810 for current statutory requirements.]
» Click here for full text version
Epstein, In re Marriage of (1979) 24 Cal.3d 76, 154 Cal.Rptr. 41, 592 P.2d 1165,
When a party uses his or her separate property funds to pay community debt after separation, the paying party is entitled to reimbursement.
» Click here for full text version
Fonstein, In re Marriage of (1976) 17 Cal.3d 738; 552 P.2d 1169,
It is improper for a court to consider potential tax liability for the possibility that a law partner may withdraw from the partnership at some future time. Because withdrawal from the partnership has not occurred, there is no tax liability to be realized during the marriage. Therefore, there is no tax liability to be charged against the non-partner spouse.
» Click here for full text version
Community Property
Aufmuth, In re Marriage of (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 152 Cal.Rptr. 668.
Post separation increase in the value of community property shares of corporate stock from the company employing the earning spouse who is not the sole shareholder is not separate property earnings of the earning spouse.
» Click here for full text version
Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17, 199 P. 885
When a separate property business is operated during marriage, the community is entitled to fair compensation for the labor, skill and effort put forth in running the business, any remaining increase in the value of the separate property business is separate property.
» Click here for full text version
Watts, In re Marriage of (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 366, 217 Cal.Rptr. 301
A spouse who maintains exclusive use of the family home and exclusive use of a community property business may be ordered to reimburse the community for said exclusive use from the date of separation to trial.
» Click here for full text version
Modnick, In re Marriage of (1983) 33 Cal.3d 897, 191 Cal.Rptr. 629, 663 P.2d 187
Concealment of community assets constitutes extrinsic fraud which may result in a judgment being set aside regardless of the fact that the other spouse was represented by counsel.
» Click here for full text version
Moore, In re Marriage of (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366, 168 Cal.Rptr. 662, 618 P.2d 208
The reduction of the principal balance of any loans on a separate property residence determines the community-property interest in that separate-property residence.
» Click here for full text version
Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1, 103 P. 488
In a separate property business, the value attributable to the community is the balance of value after the spouse who owns the separate-property business obtains a fair return from it.
» Click here for full text version
MacDonald, Estate of (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262, 272 Cal.Rptr. 153, 794 P.2d 911
The California Supreme Court clarified that a written intent to change the characterization of property from separate to community or vice versa must exist before a transmutation of property occurs.
» Click here for full text version
Marsden, In re Marriage of (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426, 181 Cal.Rptr. 910
The First District Court of Appeal described rules for identification and apportionment of a community property interest in separate property caused by use of community property funds to pay down a mortgage on the separate property asset.
» Click here for full text version
Marvin v. Marvin (Marvin I) (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106
The California Supreme Court held that oral agreements to pool assets or treat property as if it were community are enforceable in equity.
» Click here for full text version
Mix, In re Marriage of (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 122 Cal.Rptr. 79, 536 P.2d 479
The California Supreme Court clarified that tracing of separate property used to purchase an asset is essential to characterization of separate property at divorce.
» Click here for full text version
See v. See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778, 51 Cal.Rptr. 888, 415 P.2d 776
The California Supreme Court ruled that in order for a spouse to trace separate property in an account consisting of both separate and community property the spouse must demonstrate either (1) the parties had an agreement to reimburse the funds or (2) community expenses were greater than community income when the asset was acquired.
» Click here for full text version
Stenquist (Stenquist I), In re Marriage of (1978) 21 Cal.3d 779, 148 Cal.Rptr. 9, 582 P.2d 96
The Supreme Court of California ruled that disability pay is a community asset when a spouse chooses to receive the disability pay in lieu of community retirement benefits.
» Click here for full text version
Sullivan, In re Marriage of (1984) 37 Cal.3d 762, 209 Cal.Rptr. 354, 691 P.2d 1020
The California Supreme Court decided that a spouse may be reimbursed for the other party’s community financed professional education when the parties were separated before the community was able to benefit from the education.
» Click here for full text version
Brown, In re Marriage of (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561.
In overruling French v. French (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 775, 778, 112 P.2d 235, the Supreme Court held that pension benefits, even if unvested, are community property subject to division.
» Click here for full text version
Heikes, In re Marriage of (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1211, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 155, 899 P.2d 1349
Family Code §2640 (former Civil Code §4800.2) became effective January 1, 1984 and provides “provides that when community property is divided upon dissolution of the marriage, either spouse shall be reimbursed for his or her contributions of separate property to the acquisition of any property being divided as community property, unless the contributing spouse has waived the right of reimbursement in writing.” Applying §4800.2 retroactively to property obtained before 1984 is unconstitutional, since to do so deprives a party of vested property rights without due process of law. Thus property acquired during marriage in joint form prior to January 1, 1984 is presumed to b a gift.
» Click here for full text version
Imperato, In re Marriage of (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 432, 119 Cal.Rptr. 590
A corporation in which a spouse is the sole shareholder may be treated as a sole proprietorship; therefore the post-separation value of corporate stock is considered the separate property of the share-holding spouse.
» Click here for full text version
Child Custody, Child Support & Child Visitation
Williams, In re Marriage of (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 808, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 923
Without evidence that it is in the best interest of the children, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow or order that two of the party’s four children be allowed to move out of state with one on the spouses. Separation of siblings is disfavored and should not be done without evidence of compelling circumstances.
» Click here for full text version
Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 27 P.3d 289
A stipulated custody order is only a final judicial custody determination if the stipulation affirmatively states that is the parties’ intent. Without an affirmative statement that the stipulated custody order is intended to be a final custody determination, the best-interests test will be used.
» Click here for full text version
LaMusga, In re Marriage of (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 356, 88 P.3d 81
The California Supreme Court identified the threshold burden of a non-custodial parent who opposes a move-away to be a preliminary showing of detriment after which showing the trial court must consider all relevant factors in a best-interest analysis.
» Click here for full text version
Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 229 Cal.Rptr. 800, 724 P.2d 486.
Unless there has been a prior court ruling on child custody the change of circumstances rule in seeking custody does not apply.
» Click here for full text version
Burgess, In re Marriage of (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 913 P.2d 473.
Held by Supreme Court that custodial parent does not need to show necessity on application to move away from non-custodial parent.
» Click here for full text version
Damico, In re Marriage of (1994) 7 Cal.4th 673, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 787, 872 P.2d 126.
Concealment of child from parent who is looking for child bars collection of child support if motion brought after child becomes adult. (Note: Result may be different if motion brought while child is still a minor.)
» Click here for full text version
DaSilva v. DaSilva (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1030, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 923.
The court must determine the hours of responsibility that each parent has for the child to arrive at a timeshare figure.
» Click here for full text version
Duke, In re Marriage of (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 152, 161 Cal.Rptr. 444.
Court of Appeal holds that trial court must balance the significant emotional, economic and social impacts to the family unit of an immediate sale of the family residence against foreseeable detriment to the noncustodial spouse on a deferred sale. [See Family Code Sections to 3800 to 3810 for current statutory requirements.]
» Click here for full text version
Spousal Support
Vomacka, In re Marriage of (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459, 204 Cal.Rptr. 568, 683 P.2d 248
A trial court retains jurisdiction to award, extend or grant requests for spousal support beyond the date agreed upon for the supported spouse to request such payments so long as the request is made prior to the last date the court can act pursuant to the agreement.
» Click here for full text version
Wilson, In re Marriage of (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 913, 247 Cal.Rptr. 522
In a short term marriage, the court may terminate spousal support notwithstanding, lack of evidence that the payee spouse can be self-supporting and the fact that the payee spouse became permanently disabled during the marriage.
» Click here for full text version
Morrison, In re Marriage of (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437, 143 Cal.Rptr. 139, 573 P.2d 41
Spousal support in a marriage of long duration cannot be terminated absent evidence that the spouse receiving support will be self-supporting on the date of termination.
» Click here for full text version
Richmond, In re Marriage of (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 352, 164 Cal.Rptr. 381
Spousal support may be ordered to terminate on a specified date unless the recipient former spouse files a motion to continue support before the specified date.
» Click here for full text version
Chakko, In re Marriage of (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 104, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 699.
Court used loan application to determine income of father where father had failed to provide income records demanded in discovery. Issue sanction granted. Father also failed to obey court order to produce financial information.
» Click here for full text version
Retirement
McCarty v. McCarty (1981) 453 US 210
The United States Supreme Court invoked the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution to forbid state divorce courts from dividing military retirement pay.
» Click here for full text version
Smith v. Lewis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 349, 118 Cal.Rptr. 621, 530 P.2d 589
The California Supreme Court held that an attorney committed malpractice by not claiming a possible community interest in a retirement benefit even though the law was unclear.
» Click here for full text version
Brown, In re Marriage of (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561.
In overruling French v. French (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 775, 778, 112 P.2d 235, the Supreme Court held that pension benefits, even if unvested, are community property subject to division.
» Click here for full text version
Gillmore, In re Marriage of (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418; 629 P.2d 1
When benefits in a defined benefit retirement plan are matured but the employee chooses to continue working, the non-employee spouse is entitled to demand payment of his or her share without waiting for the employee to retire.
» Click here for full text version
Other
Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365
The Supreme Court of California held that statements made by an attorney during dissolution proceedings are privileged even though the statements were not made in the “interest of justice.”
» Click here for full text version
Chakko, In re Marriage of (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 104, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 699.
Court used loan application to determine income of father where father had failed to provide income records demanded in discovery. Issue sanction granted. Father also failed to obey court order to produce financial information.
» Click here for full text version
Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84
In order for a court to assert personal jurisdiction over a party to a family law matter, the minimum contacts test must be satisfied.
» Click here for full text version