---

Aloy v. Mash (1985) 38 Cal.3d 413, 1985 CFLR 2754, FIRST ALERT #F-85-159, CFLP §A.87.1.15. A California Supreme Court majority held 4-3 that an attorney's alleged malpractice in failing to claim a community-property interest in a pre-Fithian I military pension is a question for the jury. [full text]

Andreen, In re Marriage of (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 667, 1978 CFLR 1046, CFLP §F.70. The Third District held that the failure of the underlying assumptions of a spousal-support award may constitute a change of circumstances that justifies a modification. [full text]

Aufmuth, In re Marriage of (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 1979 CFLR 1058, CFLP §M.95. The First District held that the postseparation increase in the value of shares of corporate stock represented earnings of the corporation, not earnings of the employee-spouse, and thus the increase was community property. [full text]

Aylesworth, In re Marriage of (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 869, 1980 CFLR 1365, CFLP §E.31. The Second District held that an order that required a wealthy noncustodial parent to pay his son's private-school tuition was not based solely on the ability to pay where the son needed  special care not provided in public school; the trial court could refuse to order private school for a second child who did not have similar special needs. [full text]

Baragry, In re Marriage of (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 444, 1977 CFLR 1199, CFLP §J.93. The Second District held that a husband's contacts with his wife and the family home supported a finding that the date of separation was four years later than the husband alleged; the date of separation is a factual question. [full text]

Beam v. Bank of America (1971) 6 Cal.3d 12, CFLP §§M.84–M.84.2. The California Supreme Court held that an increase in the value of community property is presumed to be community; community-property living expenses must be deducted from community-property income to determine the amount of community property left for acquiring assets. [full text]

Benson, In re Marriage of (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1096, 2005 CFLR 10056, FIRST ALERT #F-2005-1206, CFLP §J.48.15. In reversal, the California Supreme Court held that an alleged oral agreement between spouses whereby the husband transferred his community interest in the family home in exchange for the wife's promise to relinquish her community interest in his retirement accounts in a subsequent writing is not enforceable as a transmutation absent writing. [full text]

Birnbaum, In re Marriage of (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1508, 1989 CFLR 4093, FIRST ALERT #F-89-385, CFLP §G.133.1.2.The First District held that an order modifying a “co-parenting residential arrangement” is not a change of custody that requires a finding of changed circumstances. [full text]

Bonvino, In re Marriage of (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1411, 2016 CFLR 13261, 2015 FA 1715, CFLP §J.48.9. Where H took title to SFR in his name alone the property remained his SP because the entire source of the down payment was from his SP. W’s execution of QCD did not vitiate the CP interest based on Moore/Marsden and CP nature of the original mortgage. [full text]

Bouquet, In re Marriage of (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, CFLP §J.91. The California Supreme Court held that then-current CC §5118 (now Fam C §771) could be applied retroactively to render as separate property what one spouse earned and accumulated prior to the effective date of amendments to CC §5118. [full text]

Brandes, In re Marriage of (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1461, 2015 FA 1705, 2015 CFLR 13141, CFLP §M.67.50. Trial Court properly determined that business remained H’s SP since it was started before marriage. The increased growth in the business did not change its character as SP. Trial court correctly used a blended approach for valuation using Pereira return to SP for earlier years of the business; and Van Camp model for adequate compensation to CP for later years. [full text]

Brooks and Robinson, In re Marriage of (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 2008 FA 1371, 2009 CFLR 11113, CFLP §§K.17.1.0, K.32. In affirmance, the Fourth District held that where a wife, with her husband’s consent, held title in her name alone to a family home purchased during marriage, the form of title controls absent a written agreement that the home was intended to be community property; the trial court did not err by rejecting the husband’s claim against a third party to whom the wife sold the home without the husband’s consent. [full text]

Brown, In re Marriage of (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, CFLP §L.4.4. The Supremes held that nonvested pension benefits earned during marriage are divisible community property. [full text]

Buol, In re Marriage of (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751, 1985 CFLR 2949, FIRST ALERT #F-85-186, CFLP §§J.11.5 – J.11.5.0.2. The state high court held that applying then-current CC §4800.1 (now Fam C §§2580 and 2581) retroactively to a case on appeal on the effective date of CC §4800.1 unconstitutionally denied due process. [full text]

Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 1986 CFLR 3233, FIRST ALERT #F-86-240, CFLP §G.133.2. The California Supreme Court held that the changed-circumstances rule is inapplicable where no prior judicial custody determination has been made. [full text]

Burgess, In re Marriage of (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 1996 CFLR 7157, FIRST ALERT #F-96-748, CFLP §G.138.15. The Supremes held that a custodial parent who has a good-faith reason for wanting to move with a child does not need to prove that the move is necessary; the standard is the child's best interests. [full text]

Burkle (Burkle II), In re Marriage of (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 712, 2006 CFLR 10305, FIRST ALERT #F-2006-1243, CFLP §J.80.3.0.5. The Second District held that the presumption of undue influence does not apply to interspousal transactions in which both spouses obtain advantages, and that the statutes requiring an exchange of PDDs and FDDs do not apply to post-marital agreements entered into in contemplation of reconciliation. [full text]

Burlini, In re Marriage of (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 65, 191 CR 541, 1983 CFLR 2317, FIRST ALERT #F-83-59, CFLP §F.53.1. The First District held that when the trial court set permanent spousal support, it had properly relied on the factors in then-current CC §4801(a)(1)–(10) (now Fam C §4320(a)–(j)) rather than using county temporary spousal-support guidelines. [full text]

Cadwell-Faso and Faso, In re Marriage of (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 945, 2011 FA 1472, 2011 CFLR 11745, CFLP §U.110.10. First District held that seven-day waiting period between first presentation of prenup and its signing, imposed by Fam C §1615(c)(2), does not apply where party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by counsel from the outset of the transaction.[full text]

Carrieres v. Commissioner (9 Cir 1977) 552 F.2d 1350, 1977 CFLR 1134, CFLP §N.139. The Ninth Circuit held that a pre-1985 division of community property where some separate property was used to equalize the division was tax-free if the taxable event occurred only as to the separate-property portion. [full text]

Cassel v. Superior Court (Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson) (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, 2011 FA 1473, 2011 CFLR 11760, CFLP §D.118.1.10. In reversal, CASCT holds that mediation confidentiality provisions apply to communications between mediating client and his/her own attorney made for purpose of, in course of, or related to mediation.  [full text]

Catalano, In re Marriage of (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 543, 1988 CFLR 3816, FIRST ALERT #F-88-342, CFLP §E.74.2. The First District held that the parties' standard of living during marriage is not applicable to child-support modifications; a child-support order must consider a high-earning noncustodial parent's “conceded wealth,” not just the child's needs. [full text]

Chakko, In re Marriage of (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 104, 2004 CFLR 9553, FIRST ALERT #F-2004-1129, CFLP §D.122.0.4. In affirmance, Second District held that the trial court did not err in imposing an issue sanction that set monthly income for a father at $40,000 when he failed to produce income records sought in discovery. [full text]

Ciprari, In re Marriage of (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 2019 CFLR 14264, 2019 FA 1874, CFLP §§A.3.1, E.22.7.5, J.62. In partial reversal, Second District reverses trial court’s 2014 pendente lite child and spousal support orders (because trial court based them on 2013 tax returns and not 2014 returns), along with permanent spousal support order and order denying fee award to mom; affirms trial court’s approval of tracing method used by dad’s accountant that was hybrid of direct tracing and family income exhaustion tracing. [full text]

Cueva, In re Marriage of (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 290, 1979 CFLR 1002, CFLP §A.21. The Fourth District held that there is no rule that attorneys' fees that exceed 3% of the value of community property are unreasonable. [full text]

Damico, In re Marriage of (1994) 7 Cal.4th 673, 1994 CFLR 6247, FIRST ALERT #F-94-649, CFLP §G.156.1.2.50. A majority of the California Supreme Court held 6-1 that a custodial parent who actively conceals herself or himself and a child from the noncustodial parent (despite reasonable efforts to locate them) until the child reaches majority is estopped from collecting child-support arrearages that accrue during the period of concealment. [full text]

DaSilva v. DaSilva (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1030, 2001 CFLR 8729, FIRST ALERT #F-2001-996, CFLP §E.23.9.4.1. In partial reversal, the Fourth District held that timeshare must be based on the calculation of the approximate percentage of time that a parent has primary physical responsibility for a child, and may include school hours. [full text]

Davenport, In re Marriage of (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 2011 FA 1488, 2011 CFLR 11843, CFLP §A.18.3.4.5. In affirmance, CA-1 holds that T/CT did not err by denying M’s motion for Fam C §271 sanctions and granting F’s motion for such sanctions because evidence of M’s attorney’s conduct supported sanctions award, while M’s evidence re F’s conduct did not. [full text]

Davis, United States v. (1962) 370 US 65, CFLP §N.126. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a transfer of appreciated separate property to a spouse to settle marital claims was taxable (pre-DRTRA) to the transferor. [full text]

Dellaria and Blickman-Dellaria, In re Marriage of (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 196, 2009 FA 1383, 2009 CFLR 11175, CFLP §J.100.26.0.5. In reversal, the First District held that the trial court erred by ordering an unequal division of community property where the parties had not agreed in writing or stipulated orally in court to an unequal division. [full text]

Donovan L., Jr. In re (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075, 2016 FA 1726, 2016 CFLR 13336, CFLP §E.0.0.1. Right to be determined a parent under Fam C §7611(d) is unrelated to the mere fact of biological parentage. Right to be deemed a 3rd parent under Fam C §7612(c) first requires finding of presumed parentage. [full text]

Elkins v. Superior Court (Elkins) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 2007 CFLR 10697, 2007 FA 1304, CFLP §§A.16.3.1.5, P.69.10.  California Supreme Court held that local rule and trial scheduling order, which required parties in disso trials to present cases through written declarations in which they had to establish admissibility of all exhibits to be introduced at trial, violate well-established rule that written declarations constitute hearsay and are inadmissible at trial. [full text]

Epstein, In re Marriage of (1979) 24 Cal.3d 76, 1979 CFLR 1086, CFLP §J.86.5. The Supremes held that postseparation payments on community debts from separate property are reimbursable to the paying spouse. [full text]

Fabian, In re Marriage of (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440, 1986 CFLR 3046, FIRST ALERT #F-86-212, CFLP §J.11.5.3. The state high court held that applying then-current CC §4800.2 (now Fam C §2640) to cases pending on January 1, 1984 (the effective date of CC §4800.2) was an unconstitutional impairment of vested rights.[full text]

Feldman, In re Marriage of (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1470, 2007 CFLR 10701, 2007 FA 1304, CFLP §§A.18.3.3, J.80.3.5. In affirmance, Fourth District held that trial court did not err by imposing monetary sanctions on husband for breaching fiduciary duty by intentionally seeking to circumvent disclosure process and engaging in conduct that frustrated settlement. [full text]

Fellows, In re Marriage of (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 2006 CFLR 10357, FIRST ALERT #F-2005-1252, CFLP §S.25.0.5. The California Supreme Court held that Fam C §4502(c), which precludes a parent from raising laches as a defense to a private child-support enforcement action, applies retroactively. [full text]

Fithian (Fithian II), In re Marriage of (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 397, 1977 CFLR 1224, CFLP §§N.79, S.140. The Third District held that a spouse may be held in contempt for failing to divide property in kind with the other spouse, per court order; the trial court can order one party to endorse a community-property check and pay the funds into the court. [full text]

Fonstein, In re Marriage of (1976) 17 Cal.3d 738, CFLP §N.132. The California Supreme Court held that it was error for the trial court to consider potential tax consequences in valuing and dividing community property. [full text]

F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1, 2011 CFLR 11813, 2011 FA 1484, §§G.133.3, G.138.15, G.138.37.5. In reversal, CA-4 holds that T/CT erred in denying F’s motion to move to Washington State with C be-cause it unduly focused on effect of move on M, failed to apply best-interests standard properly, made finding re co-parenting unsupported by evidence, and failed to consider M’s prior domestic violence toward C as required by Fam C §3044. [full text]

Gillmore, In re Marriage of (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418, 1981 CFLR 1662, CFLP §L.132.1. The Supremes held that a nonemployee-spouse may elect to take an immediate distribution of his or her community-property share of vested retirement benefits even if the employee-spouse elects not to retire at the earliest retirement age. [full text]

Gruen, In re Marriage of (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 627, 2010 FA 1471, 2011 CFLR 11748, CFLP §E.69. In reversal, CA-4 holds that T/CT erred by modifying temporary support order retroactively to date prior to filing of OSC or motion and by ordering prospective modification in absence of pending OSC for modification. [full text]

Hebbring, In re Marriage of (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1989 CFLR 3986, FIRST ALERT #F-89-364, CFLP §F.76.2. The First District held that it was reversible error for the trial court to retain open-ended jurisdiction over spousal support in a marriage of short duration where the spouses were self-supporting. [full text]

Heikes, In re Marriage of (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1211, 1995 CFLR 6841, FIRST ALERT #F-95-715, CFLP §J.11.5.3.5. The California Supreme Court held that applying Fam C §2640 retroactively to property acquired before January 1, 1984, is an unconstitutional violation of due process. [full text]

Hewitson, In re Marriage of (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 874, 1983 CFLR 2274, FIRST ALERT #F-83-58, CFLP §§M.67.2, M.67.3. The Second District held that a closely held business cannot be valued by the same methods used for valuing public companies; the value of a closely held corporation may be determined by investment value rather than market value. [full text]

Hoffmeister (Hoffmeister II), In re Marriage of (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 351, 1987 CFLR 3354, FIRST ALERT #F-87-272, CFLP §§F.97.1.1, F.97.2. The First District reversed a spousal-support order where the trial court's statement of decision was not supported by the evidence. [full text]

Honer, In re Marriage of (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 687, 2015 CFLR 13065, 2015 FA 1689, CFLP §M.26.5. Trial Court can properly award business asset to operating spouse without ordering a sale of the business. No requirement to order parties to remain partners in the holding company that owned the property where the business operated. Trial court justifiably denied W’s request for a share of the retained earnings since H needed the retained earnings to properly capitalize and operate the business. [full text]

Hopkins, In re Marriage of (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 591, 1977 CFLR 1222, CFLP §J.84.1.3. The Second District held that a debt unrelated to the community and incurred after separation is a separate debt. [full text]

Hug, In re Marriage of (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 780, 1984 CFLR 2442, FIRST ALERT #F-84-109, CFLP §L.109.1. The First District held that stock options may be apportioned by the time-rule formula or by any other method that will achieve an equitable allocation. [full text]

Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 2011 CFLR 11865, 2011 FA 1495, CFLP §§G.138.15, G.138.37. In reversal, CA-3 holds that T/CT erred by issuing order denying M’s motion to relocate with C and maintaining custody status quo where its order was based on premise that M would not move without C and failed to determine what order would be in C’s best interests if move took place. [full text]

Kennedy, In re Marriage of (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1633, 1987 CFLR 3445, FIRST ALERT #F-87-287, CFLP §§F.37.3, F.37.4. The Fourth District held that the supported spouse need not invest her share of community proceeds in income-producing property, but the trial court, when modifying spousal support, can consider the payee's assets and how they are used; the panel also said that it was OK for the supported spouse to set aside for retirement a portion of the assets awarded to her in the disso. [full text]

Kevin Q. v. Lauren W. (Kevin Q. II) (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 633, 2011 FA 1489, 2011 CFLR 11840, CFLP §§A.17.0.2, A.17.1. In affirmance, CA-4 holds that T/CT did not err by relying in part on Fam C §2032 (not solely on Fam C §7605) in denying M’s request for fees in paternity case because there was no published case law on §7605 and M directed T/CT’s attention to §2032 in her memorandum of points and authorities. [full text]

Kulko v. Superior Court (Horn) (1978) 436 US 84, 1978 CFLR 1143, CFLP §B.8. A U.S. Supreme Court majority held 6-3 that a state does not have personal jurisdiction per long-arm statutes over a family law respondent absent sufficient minimum contacts between the respondent and the state. [full text]

---

Kuppinger, In re Marriage of (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 628, CFLP §F.37. The Second District held that the supported spouse need not convert capital assets into income-producing property to qualify for spousal support. [full text]

Lafkas, In re Marriage of (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 921, 2015 CFLR 13085, 2015 FA 1695, CFLP §J.44.3. H’s execution of new partnership documents transferring the partnership interest into joint names did not constitute a transmutation of his SP interest under Fam C 852. [full text]

LaMusga, In re Marriage of (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 2004 CFLR 9617, FIRST ALERT #F-2004-1143, CFLP §G.138.15. In reversal, a California Supreme Court majority (6-1) held that a noncustodial parent who opposes a custodial parent's move must show that the move would cause detriment to the child, after which the trial court must evaluate all relevant factors to determine whether it is in the child's best interests to order a change of custody. [full text]

Laurenti, In re Marriage of (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 395, 2007 CFLR 10707, 2007 FA 1306, CFLP §G.84.5. In partial reversal, Second District held that trial court erred by ordering Mom to pay all of disqualified evaluator’s fees and costs without first determining whether fees were reasonable or setting specific amount for her to pay. [full text]

Lopez, In re Marriage of (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 93, CFLP §M.50. The Third District held that in valuing goodwill, the trial court must consider fixed assets, aged receivables, costs advanced, work in progress, and other relevant factors. [full text]

Lucio, In re Marriage of (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1068, 2008 CFLR 10913, 2008 FA 1337, CFLP §§A.18.3.4, G.133.1.2. In reversal, Fourth District held that trial court erred by applying changed-circumstances standard where father’s OSC sought to modify parenting and visitation arrangement. [full text]

MacDonald, Estate of (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262, 1990 CFLR 4465, FIRST ALERT #F-90-440, CFLP §J.48.0.5. A California Supreme Court majority held that a wife's signature on a form consenting to the designation of another beneficiary did not constitute a transmutation of IRA accounts to her husband's separate property. [full text]

Margulis, In re Marriage of (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1252, 2011 FA 1501, 2011 CFLR 11917, CFLP §J.80.3.0.3.5. In reversal, CA-4 holds that where non-managing spouse makes prima facie showing of existence and value of CP assets in managing spouse’s post-separation control, burden of proof shifts to managing spouse to rebut that showing or prove proper disposition or lesser value of those assets. [full text]

Marsden, In re Marriage of (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426, 1982 CFLR 1934, FIRST ALERT #F-82-1, CFLP §K.55.1. The First District held that premarital appreciation of  a separate-property residence is separate property; appreciation during marriage must be apportioned between community and separate property. [full text]

Marvin v. Marvin (Marvin I) (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 1977 CFLR 1002, CFLP §§U.31.5–U.51. The California Supreme Court held that express or implied oral agreements to pool property are enforceable in equity unless they are made for the purpose of providing sexual services. [full text]

McCarty v. McCarty (1981) 453 US 210, 1981 CFLR 1650, CFLP §L.87. A U.S. Supreme Court majority held 6-3 that the supremacy clause precludes states from dividing federal military retirement pay in state disso proceedings. [full text]

McElwee, In re Marriage of (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 902, 1988 CFLR 3558, FIRST ALERT #F-88-307, CFLP §F.76.0.3. The Second District held that the trial court may terminate spousal support in a long-term marriage where the recipient invested her share of community property unwisely. [full text]

McTiernan and Dubrow, In re Marriage of (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1090, 2005 FA 1217, 2009 CFLR 10141, CFLP §§C.10.5, F.54.5, F.75, M.42.2.2. In partial reversal, a Second District majority held that professional goodwill exists only in connection with a business, not with “a person doing business”; thus, the trial court erred in finding that a movie director had goodwill. [full text]

Mix, In re Marriage of (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, CFLP §J.79.10. The California Supreme Court held that a “separatizer” must prove that sufficient separate-property funds were available at the time of a purchase, and that he or she intended to and did use such funds for that purchase. [full text]

Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 2001 CFLR 8798, FIRST ALERT #F-2001-1010, CFLP §G.133.3. The California Supreme Court held that a stipulated custody order is a final judicial custody determination only if the parties affirmatively indicate that it is intended to be so; the best-interests test is valid where the stipulation of the parties did not include such an affirmation. [full text]

Moore, In re Marriage of (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366, 1980 CFLR 1458, CFLP §K.55. The Supremes held that the community-property interest in a separate-property residence is limited to the paydown of the principal balance on the loan. [full text]

Morrison, In re Marriage of (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437, 1978 CFLR 1038, CFLP §F.76. The California Supreme Court held that a court may not terminate jurisdiction over spousal support in a marriage of long duration absent evidence that the supported spouse will be self-supporting by the date of termination. [full text]

Nassimi, In re Marriage of (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 667, 2016 CFLR 13499, 2016 FA 1759. CP estate is liable under Fam C § 2556 for undisposed obligation related to fraud lawsuit instituted against H based on fraud. Since CP benefited from the misrepresentations, it must share in the payment of the settlement in favor of the plaintiff. [full text]

Nelson, In re Marriage of (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 150, 1986 CFLR 3060, FIRST ALERT #F-86-207, CFLP §N.131.1. The First District held that a husband's exclusive control of community-property stock options was “special economic circumstance” that justified the trial court's consideration of the tax effect of awarding the options. [full text]

Norton, In re Marriage of (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 53, 1989 CFLR 3914, FIRST ALERT #F-88-353, CFLP §A.18.3.20. The Second District held that fees under then-current CC §4370.5 (part of which became CC §4370.6; now Fam C §271) were OK where the position was unreasonable, but the court may not impose a sanction that constitutes an unreasonable financial burden. [full text]

Olson, In re Marriage of (1980) 27 Cal.3d 414, 1980 CFLR 1362, CFLP §J.99.4. The state high court held that it was error not to reopen a case after trial to redivide assets where an asset was lost to foreclosure before entry of the judgment. [full text]

Pendleton and Fireman, In re Marriage of (2000) 24 Cal.4th 39, 2000 CFLR 8550, FIRST ALERT #F-2000-964, CFLP §U.110.5. A California Supreme Court majority held 6-1 that a waiver of spousal support in a prenuptial agreement is not per se void or unenforceable. [full text]

Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1, CFLP §M.72. The California Supreme Court held that a spouse who owns a separate-property business is entitled to a fair return on that property; the balance of value is attributable to the community. [full text]

Ramirez, In re Marriage of (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 336, 2011 CFLR 11920, 2011 FA 1501, CFLP §§A.65.2.10, J.80.5.4. In partial reversal, CA-4 holds that T/CT erred by ordering FLARPL extinguished after hearing at which attorney was not present; attorney is indispensible party and should have been joined before T/CT made its order. [full text]

Reifler v. Superior Court (Reifler) (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 479, CFLP §F.15. The Second District held that the trial court may decide a motion for a postdisso modification on declarations alone and exclude testimony. [full text]

Richardson, In re Marriage of (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 941, 2002 CFLR 9145, FIRST ALERT #F-2002-1067, CFLP §G.138.37.5. The Second District held that the trial court must give de novo review in a move-away case if the prior order lacks a clear, affirmative indication that the custody provisions in the parties' stipulated disso judgment were intended to be the final custody determination. [full text]

Richmond, In re Marriage of (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 352, 1980 CFLR 1357, CFLP §F.72. The First District held that the trial court may order spousal support to terminate on a date certain, unless the payee brings a motion prior to the termination date requesting that support continue. [full text]

Rosen, In re Marriage of (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 808, 2003 CFLR 9241, FIRST ALERT #F-2004-1151, CFLP §M.48.5. In partial reversal, the Fourth District held that the trial court erred by basing the valuation of goodwill of the husband's law practice on only one year's income. [full text]

Rossi, In re Marriage of (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 34, FIRST ALERT #F-2001-1005, CFLP §J.80.3.2.15. The Second District held that it was OK for the trial court to award to a husband 100% of the lottery winnings that his wife had intentionally failed to reveal to him before their MSA or disso judgment. [full text]

Rossin, In re Marriage of (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 725, 2009 FA 1384, 2009 CFLR 11173, CFLP §L.41.1.10. In reversal, the Sixth District held that disability benefits paid to a wife during marriage from a private disability policy that she acquired and fully paid before marriage are her separate property. [full text]

Saslow, In re Marriage of (1985) 40 Cal.3d 848, 710 P2d 346, 1986 CFLR 3010, FIRST ALERT #F-86-202, CFLP §§L.41.1.1, L.41.1.1.0. The California Supreme Court held that a portion of disability insurance benefits intended to provide support after retirement was community property; the portion intended to replace lost earnings was separate property. [full text]

Schaffer (Schaffer II), In re Marriage of (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 801, 1999 CFLR 8145, FIRST ALERT #F-99-888, CFLP §F.97.0.10. The Fourth District held that in spousal-support cases involving a series of postjudgment hearings, the trial court must look at the entire course of conduct, not just the circumstances since the last hearing. [full text]

Schleich, In re Marriage of (2018) 8 Cal.App.5th 267, 2018 CFLR 13653, 2018 FA 1776. Trial court reversed for awarding both 100% of the CP asset and an additional 50% based on H’s breach of fiduciary duty. Trial court may sanction H for nondisclosure of his SP but cannot award H’s SP to W since there was no impairment of the CP estate under Fam C §1101. [full text]

Seagondollar, In re Marriage of (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 2006 CFLR 10317, 2006 FA 1244, CFLP §§C.29.4.20, C.29.4.30, C.29.6, C.29.11.35, G.84.2, G.123.17. In reversal, Fourth District held that failure to follow family law rules and procedures deprived Dad of opportunity for meaningful hearing before trial court granted Mom’s custody and move-away requests. [full text]

See v. See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778, CFLP §J.80. The Supremes held that a spouse tracing separate-property funds in a commingled account must show either that there was an agreement to reimburse the separate-property funds or that community expenses exceeded community income at the time the asset was acquired.[full text]

Shupe, In re Marriage of (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1983 CFLR 2206, FIRST ALERT #F-83-46, CFLP §E.4.1.1. The Fourth District held that evidence regarding a new spouse's earnings is irrelevant in modifying child support where the parent and the new spouse have an agreement that the income of each remains his or her separate property. [full text]

Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 1990 CFLR 4277, FIRST ALERT #F-90-417, CFLP §A.103.0.0.1.5. The state high court held that the CC §47(b) litigation privilege is absolute; there is no “interest of justice” exception. [full text]

Smith v. Lewis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 349, CFLP §A.87.0.5. A California Supreme Court majority held 5-2 that an attorney was liable for malpractice for failing to assert a community-property claim to retirement benefits, despite the fact that, at the time, it was legally unclear whether the benefits were divisible. [full text]

S.P. v. F.G. (2016) 4 Cal.App.4th 921, 2016 CFLR 13563, 2016 FA 1763. Trial court award of below guideline CS was supported by evidence that C’s reasonable needs would be met by amount of support consistent with C’s best interest. M had inflated her expenses so that court was justified in giving her claimed expenses very little weight. [full text]

Stallworth, In re Marriage of (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 742, 1987 CFLR 3409, FIRST ALERT #F-87-278, CFLP §K.58.1.4. The First District reversed a Duke order where there was no evidence presented at trial to support a Duke finding (economic detriment doesn't outweigh adverse psychological effect). [full text]

Starr v. Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 2010 CFLR 11645, 2010 FA 1461, CFLP §J.80.3.0.4.5. Second District holds that trial court did not err in finding that family home acquired in husband’s sole name for loan rate purposes was parties’ community property and ordering him to convey the house to his wife and him as tenants in common. [full text]

Stenquist (Stenquist I), In re Marriage of  (1978) 21 Cal.3d 779, 1978 CFLR 1198, CFLP §L.33. A California Supreme Court majority held 6-1 that disability pay that replaces the community portion of longevity benefits that would have been received had disability not been elected is divisible community property. [full text]

Stitt, In re Marriage of (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 579, FIRST ALERT #F-83-79, CFLP §J.84.1.0. The Fifth District held that the trial court did not err in finding that attorney's fees that a wife paid near separation for defense in her embezzlement conviction were her separate-property debt, and reimbursable to the community; the wife's conduct didn't benefit the community. [full text]

Sullivan, In re Marriage of (1984) 37 Cal.3d 762, 1985 CFLR 2698, FIRST ALERT #F-85-148, CFLP §§M.67.10–M.67.12. The state high court held that the community has a reimbursable interest in one spouse's professional education where the parties separated before the community could reap the benefits from that education. [full text]

Tammen, In re Marriage of (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 927, 1977 CFLR 1050, CFLP §N.168. The First District held that a promissory note taken to equalize the division of property must be discounted and valued at the current market value of a promissory note. [full text]

Valli, In re Marriage of (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1396, 2014 CFLR 12749, 2014 FA 1640, CFLP §J.44.3. In reversal, California Supreme Court holds that life insurance policy purchased during marriage with community funds, which named wife as its sole owner, is subject to transmutation statutes and will be characterized as community property unless statutory transmutation requirements were met. [full text]

Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17, CFLP §M.73. The Second District held that the community is entitled to fair compensation for efforts in running a separate-property business; the balance of any increase is separate property. [full text]

Van Hook, In re Marriage of (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 970, 1984 CFLR 2456, FIRST ALERT #F-83-80, CFLP §C.24.0.1. The Third District held that the trial court may enjoin a third party from levying on community property pending a disso, providing that a bond is required. [full text]

Vomacka, In re Marriage of (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459, 1984 CFLR 2522, FIRST ALERT #F-84-123, CFLP §F.72.2. A California Supreme Court majority held 5-2 that if the right to request spousal support continues to a date certain, the trial court has jurisdiction to extend support beyond that date. [full text]

Walker, In re Marriage of (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1408, 2006 CFLR 10288, 2006 FA 1240, CFLP §J.80.3.0.9. In partial reversal, First District held that trial court erred by applying Fam C §721 & §1100 retroactively in finding that wife breached fiduciary duty by failing to keep husband informed about dwindling IRA balance. [full text]

Watts, In re Marriage of (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 366, 1985 CFLR 2910, FIRST ALERT #F-85-183, CFLP §J.89.5. The Fifth District held that the trial court may order a spouse to reimburse the community for exclusive use of the family home and a community-property business from the date of separation to trial. [full text]

Williams, In re Marriage of (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 808, 2004 CFLR 9667, FIRST ALERT #F-2004-1151, CFLP §G.138.39. The Second District held that the trial court is not permitted to make an order that allows only two of the parties' four children to move with the mother unless compelling circumstances and the best interests of the kids require that they be separated. [full text]

Wilson, In re Marriage of (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 913, 1988 CFLR 3698, FIRST ALERT #F-88-327, CFLP §F.79.0.0.1. The Fourth District held that the trial court may terminate spousal support, despite the payee's disability, in a marriage of short duration. [full text]

Zlatnik, In re Marriage of (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1284, 1988 CFLR 3561, FIRST ALERT #F-88-309, CFLP §F.72.2.1.2. The Fourth District held that it was error for the trial court to extend spousal support where a stipulated order contained explicit termination language. [full text]

---

PDF VERSION TOP FAMILY LAW STATUTES
Click the Code Sections to view the full text (be sure to check the latest Family Code for the most current versions of these sections)
Fam C Code	Topic
70	Date of separation determined by totality of circumstances. Whether parties reside under same roof is one factor but not determinative
217	Testimony at motion hearing
218	Reopening of discovery for postjudgment family law motions
241	Temporary order without notice
246	Time to act on application for order
270	Ability to pay attorney's fees or costs
271	Conduct-based award of attorney's fees or costs
290	Enforcement methods
721	Fiduciary relationship of husband and wife
755	Notice of interest in employee retirement plan
760	Definition of community property
771	Earnings while living separate are separate prop
850	Transmutation
852	Transmutations after 1/1/85 to be in writing
910	Community liable for debt of either spouse
915	Liability for support debt for prior family
916	Liability after property division
920	Reimbursement
1100	Fiduciary duty re community personal prop
1101	Remedies for breach of fiduciary duty
1102	Management and control of community real prop
2010	Jurisdiction of disso court
2021	Authority for joinder of pension plan
2022	Eavesdropping evidence
2024.6	Sealing of disso records identifying assets and liabilities
2030	Pendente lite attorneys' fees and costs
2032	Factors re just and reasonable fee award
2033	Family law attorney's real property lien
2034	Objection to FLARPL
2045	Ex parte orders
2060	Procedure re joinder of pension plan
2100	Policy re disclosure of assets and liabilities
2102	Fiduciary duties
2104	Preliminary disclosure declarations
2105	Final disclosure declarations
2108	Pendente lite authority to liquidate assets
2122	Grounds for relief from disso prop/support judgment
2320	Disso/legal sep residency requirement
2321	Conversion from separation to disso proceeding
2335	Specific acts of misconduct inadmissible
2336	Proof required for default
2337	Bifurcation conditions
2346	Nunc pro tunc entry of judgment
2550	Equal division of community property
2552	Valuation date
2556	Postjudgment juris to distribute omitted prop
2580	Legislative intent re jointly held property
2581	Presumption that jointly held prop is community
2601	Award of asset to one party
2603.5	Enforcement of civil damages judgment against community property for domestic violence
2610	Retirement plan benefits division
2640	Reimbursement of separate prop contributions
2641	Reimbursement of comm contribution to educ
2650	Jointly held separate property
3011	Best interests factors
3020	Policy re continuing contact with both parents
3027.1	False child abuse accusation
3029	Disability as custody factor
3040	Order of preference when granting custody
3041.5	Drug/alcohol testing in custody proceedings
3042	Child's custody preference
3044	Presumption against award of joint custody to perpetrator of domestic violence absent good cause or compliance with court imposed DV requirements
3047	Custody modification after military deployment; continuing jurisdiction
3083	Joint legal custody order specifics
3103	Grandparent visitation rights
3104	Grandparent visitation factors
3111	Evaluation may only be considered if conducted in compliance with CRC and Fam C requirements for evaluations. Report only admissible by stipulation of all parties under 3111(c)
3150	Appointment of counsel for child
3170	Mandatory custody/visitation mediation
3177	Confidentiality of mediation
3181	Separate mediation when domestic violence
3190	Order requiring counseling
3421	UCCJEA jurisdiction
3423	UCCJEA mod jurisdiction
3424	UCCJEA emergency jurisdiction
3443	Recognition of sister-state custody decree
3552	Tax returns discoverable if support at issue
3556	Support duty not affected by custody/visitation
3600	Pendente lite support
3653	Retroactivity of support modification
3761	Health insurance coverage assignment
3800	Deferred sale of home order
3802	Factors re: deferring sale of home
3901	Duration of child support
4001	Jurisdiction for child-support order
4007.5	Child-support suspension during incarceration
4009	Retroactivity of child-support order
4053	Mandatory child-support principles
4055	Statewide child-support guideline formula
4056	Information required to deviate from guideline
4057	Rebuttal of presumption that guideline is correct
4057.5	New-mate income
4058	Sources includible in gross income
4059	Calculation of net disposable income
4065	Prerequisites to below-guideline stipulation
4066	Family support authorization
4071	Qualification for hardship deduction
4320	Mandatory spousal-support considerations
4323	Cohabitation by spousal-support recipient
4324.5	Disso remedies in cases of sexual violence against spouse
4326	Termination of child support as change of circumstance
4331	Examination by vocational consultant
4333	Retroactivity of spousal-support order
4336	Retention of jurisdiction re spousal support
5230	Mandatory support-order wage assignment
6300	Domestic violence protective order
6320	Ex parte order
6321	Ex parte exclusion from a dwelling
6323	Ex parte custody and visitation
7540	Conclusive paternity presumption
7541	Blood tests to rebut conclusive presumption
7611	Qualifications for presumed father status
9000.5	Stepparent adoptions of children born during marriage or domestic partnership