Recent Posts in Real Property Issues Category

Marriage of Ruiz (Opinion Published 4/14/11) E049310

In the recently published Fourth Appellate case of Marriage of Ruiz out of Riverside County, the parties' marriage lasted 32 years - married in 1973 (not the summer of love), they separated in March, 2005. A major bone of contention was how to characterize Wife's lump-sum worker's comp settlement of $250,000 received several years before the breakup, which netted $172,364 after attorney fees and costs. Wife believed it was all hers in the absence of proof by Husband of what portion of the money she received should be allocated between compensation for loss of past income verses what portion was intended to compensate her for loss of future earning capacity. Not surprisingly if Husband indeed had the burden of proof on this issue, he was never going to meet it - worker's compensation awards and financial settlements relating to personal injuries are simply gross numbers that some insurance bean counter crunches and then offers a gross settlement to resolve. No one in Wife's work compensation team was thinking about a fixed amount that was intended to resolve temporary compensation benefits as opposed to wife's lifetime loss of income producing ability - these claims just don't get settled in that fashion. Hence, if Husband had the burden of proving an imaginary apportionment he would never be able to do so and Wife would take all.

This case illustrates what can happen where one party or another has the "burden of proof" on a particular issue - often this is a short hand way of saying "you lose."

Four years later their divorce proceedings resulted in a discretionary trial court finding that $103,033 of the award was CP, with a balance of $71,311 being Wife's separate property. This finding was upheld on appeal as a reasonable exercise of discretion by Judge Irma Poole Asberry.

Wife argued that despite the statutory community presumption per Family Code section 760 that property acquired during marriage belongs to the community, existing caselaw (Raphael v. Bloomfield) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 617) required a conclusion that the award is community property only to the extent that it is intended to compensate for the injured spouse's reduced income during the marriage and before separation, and for injury-related expenses that were paid with community funds. She urged that the remainder of an injured spouse's recovery is intended to compensate her for their diminished earning capacity and/or medical expenses which continue after the DOS.

Therefore, the Wife here argued that Raphael carved an exception to the rebuttable presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property, instead creating a presumption that the award is the injured spouse's separate property. If true, this would impose the burden of proof as to allocation upon the noninjured spouse. Hence, she argued, if neither party could show evidence of how the award was calculated the party with the burden of proof would lose. The record on appeal was clear that neither party produced any evidence one way or the other because - frankly - there was and could be none.

Judge Asberry correctly declined to find that the general overriding FC § 760 presumption could be trumped by this supposed exception. Since Wife evidently concluded her best litigation strategy was not to offer any compromise solution for determining the competing community verses separate property interests, the court applied a formula suggested by Husband for apportioning the award as between CP and SP. Wife took and all or nothing position that was a high stakes gamble, and she lost. Interestingly, the decision is clear that had she suggested some other valuation method the trial court could have found that was more equitable than Husband's proposal instead, and it would not have been reversed.

Play hard ball, get slammed.

The rule reiterated by the Ruiz court is simple, fair, and obvious. It is already established that period disability retirement payments which are received during marriage are community property, in that they are intended to compensate the community for loss of income that the injured spouse would otherwise have earned. Periodic disability payments received after separation are the separate property of the injured spouse alone for his or her diminished earning capacity. Citing the California Supreme Court in Marriage of Jones (1975) 13 Cal.3d 457, the Riverside justices stated "[s]o long as the marriage subsists, the [injured spouse's] reduced earnings worked a loss to the community. But such community loss does not continue after dissolution; at that point the earnings or accumulations of each party are the separate property" of each.  "[O]nly such payments as are received during marriage are community property."

But within the context of worker's compensation permanent disability awards, as was presented here, Raphael had concluded that the timing of the award (i.e., whether received before or after separation) should not dictate the outcome - instead the inquiry was what portion was intended to compensate the injured spouse for his/her reduced earnings during the marriage, which would be CP. Again, a question that is not likely to be answered by the non-injured spouse because they have no access to such information assuming it even was part of the settlement calculation; yet, this perhaps reasonably did suggest to Wife's attorney he might successfully argue that the burden of proof was hence placed upon the Husband.

The Ruiz Court decided that neither party had a burden of proof that would create a rebuttable presumption in the favor of one or the other because the trial court properly concluded that the award was part community and part separate property of Wife. The issue was then for the trial court to decide in terms of equitable apportionment of the competing interests. "In doing so, the court may use any method which fairly apportions the assets or its value between community and separate property interests. Because it is the court's obligation to make an equitable apportionment, neither party has the burden of proof in the sense that a failure of proof will result in an award of the asset in its entirety to the other party."

Thus, in equitable apportionment cases involving disability awards, which includes all hybrid mixes of community/separate attributes, a disadvantaged party (here the Husband who could not marshal much less control the evidence of what the worker's comp carrier intended when it settled Wife's case) does not lose simply because of a failure of their access to proof. Instead trial courts are free to fashion any result which works substantial justice. This was fair because nothing indicated that Wife had received any temporary disability benefits during the marriage that got banked - this lump sum settlement was all that she apparently received for the total loss occasioned to her, and to the community, for the injuries she suffered.

To the extent that the Wife argued the trial court's division of the CP amounts vs. the SP amounts was arbitrary, she had no right to complain because she never suggested any other measure that the trial court might use in supporting a different allocation scheme.

So, the lesson is this: Play hardball, get slammed..... (mediate your disputes instead, and don't disconnect from reasonableness - one never knows how a court might rule!)

Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S

I have residential property in La Quinta  My wife and I are divorcing and in the process of splitting assets.  She and her parents employed * * * of * * * in Palm Desert to value the property.  I'd like a second opinion regarding its value.  

I need some help in getting an honest appraisal.  What would your fee be to provide some help in finding an appraiser?

Thanks.

Frederic

Thurman

    "(a) At a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause pursuant to subdivision (b), the court shall receive any live, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing and the court may ask questions of the parties.

    (b) In appropriate cases, a court may make a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony and shall state its reasons for the finding on the record or in writing. The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 2012, adopt a statewide rule of court regarding the factors a court shall consider in making a finding of good cause.

    (c) A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony.

If the witness list is not served prior to the hearing, the court may, on request, grant a brief continuance and may make appropriate temporary orders pending the continued hearing."

Family Code section 217 will cause a sea-change in day to day family court proceedings across our state, unless family court judicial officers ignore it to the limited extent possible by court rules.  It will likely have immense financial and resource consequences upon not only the courts but upon parties to family court proceedings.  It will force the state government in coming years to study whole new paradigms for resolving divorce and domestic partnership dissolution outside the adversary template, including those currently practiced in New Zealand and southern Australia. 

It will also pressure parties to consider mediation, and collaborative processes which occur outside congested courthouses, much more carefully.  The costs of adversary litigation are about to sky-rocket, making mediation even more appealing from a financial perspective (I have written extensively about the emotional and psychological benefits here an elsewhere).  There simply is no governmental money available to absorb the coming Elkins Onslaught. For more information about an alternative method for resolving family disputes, please visit us at www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com.
  
At the same time, at least in the short run taken together with some of the other revisions that become effective next month, it may encourage more people to litigate more stubbornly and so make mediation seem less attractive than it did before the changes (just the reverse will be true).  Some folks will mistakenly assume that this invites the use of court hearings as a live-testimony forum for sharing unresolved complaints relating to their marriage or domestic partnership dissolution with the other party in open court.  Instead, judges will sustain objections to such irrelevant material and parties who seek to use Family Court as a platform to air relationship grievances will find themselves alienating the trier of fact in ways that will have adverse consequences to them beyond just the time and expense of the exercise. 

The purpose of today's Blog is to introduce you to section 217 and the new changes.  I will follow up with more articles in coming weeks.  Without a doubt the new rules will make all the information I provide on my websites more relevant and timely for my readers. 

• Epstein Credits
• Watts Credits
• Jeffries Credits

This particular Blog addresses your question in terms of Epsteins - the next blog deals specificially with Watts and Jeffries credits. 

Epstein Credits

I have described Epstein Reimbursements in another Blog.  "Epstein credits" is a doctrine derived from the case of Marriage of Epstein (1979) 24 Cal.3d 76, 84-85.  It holds that as a general rule, courts must reimburse one spouse out of the community property who uses earnings or other separate funds after separation to pay pre-existing community obligations.  This commonly occurs with credit cards where there was a balance remaining when the parties separated that one or the other pays after that date.  Epsteins only apply to payments on the portion of a debt that existed at date of separation, and not new debt on an old card that was incurred afterwards.  The rule is not limited to credit cards but can apply to almost any class of debts.

Courts are required not to order this reimbursement if under the circumstances it would be unreasonable for the paying spouse to have expected reimbursement.  If there was an agreement that a party would not be reimbursed, if the paying spouse intended the payment as a gift, or when the payment is made on account of a debt for an asset that the paying spouse was or is using and the amount was not substantially in excess of the value of the use, the Court may decline to order reimbursement.  This idea of the value of use of some property acquired through debt that continues to exist after separation underlies the concepts of Watts credits and Jeffries credits, and is obviously implicated in your question since you occupy the house for which you seek credits and reimbursements.

So, Epsteins are almost always granted as to post-separation payments for expenses, or goods and services, that didn't leave a tangible asset behind that is now being exclusively enjoyed by only one of the two spouses. 

As an example of how this works if there is $15,000 owing Visa for that trip to Hawaii, some groceries, and a child's school tuition at the time of separation and one party pays it off or makes monthly installments on the debt with their earnings or other separate property after that date, a benefit has been conferred upon the community because a joint obligation has been extinguished or reduced.  That benefit must be equalized by a payment to the payor of one-half the amount paid or a credit or set-off against other property that gets divided.  One-half is paid because the paying spouse owed their half anyway.  Any portion paid before the DOS (date of separation) ordinarily will not be reimbursed. 

This is generally true even if only one of the parties actually took the trip to Hawaii, unless that trip was in breach of a marital or fiduciary duty (if the husband snuck off with his paramour to Hawaii, an argument exists that he should not be reimbursed for paying that portion of the debt over the wife's objection).  Family Code section 2625 directs courts to award a debt incurred by one spouse to them alone if debt was not "incurred for the benefit of the community."  Family Code section 2602 empowers courts to "award ... the amount the court determines to have been deliberately misappropriated by the party to the exclusion of the interest to any other party in the community estate."  FC section 2625 is a powerful and much underused statute (many attorneys seem to be unaware of it or try to bluff as though it didn't exist).

Compare this with a situation where a credit card was used to buy a dishwasher that the paying spouse possesses or receives in the divorce - since they are retaining a tangible asset it may not be fair to allow them to both keep the asset and get reimbursed for one-half its costs.  Applying Epsteins can become fairly fact specific.

In situations involving use of a family residence or other tangible assets that continue to exist after separation and which are used and enjoyed by only one of the spouses, an Epstein analysis provides only a part of the answer to the reimbursement question.  In effect first the amount of the Epstein reimbursements are determined, and then the question requires a Watts analysis to determine under equitable principles whether it is fair to actually order reimbursement and, if so, in what amount.

Hence, to resolve your issue you would begin by adding up the costs of everything related to the house that is spent to preserve or protect the asset.  Property taxes are included, but utilities are not.  The utilities you used after the physical separation are your obligation anyway, because they were not incurred during 'the marriage.'  (Please see the Blog Category "Physical Separation.")  Mortgage payments and insurance are considered, and probably the poolman or gardner as well.

Please continue on to the next blog for detailed infomation concerning Watts credits.

Epstein Credits and Fiduciary Duty Issues

Sometimes a spouse or domestic partner will raid the credit cards and take cash advances or buy a new wardrobe, or fix a car, during the weeks prior to separating.  If it later appears that their intention was to stick the other spouse for one-half of this expense, the presumption that this is a community debt (because incurred during marriage) may be overcome and so it may be assigned to the one spouse alone.  It is not fair to hold both parties responsible for debts incurred in anticipation of separation.

However, when one partner incurs a debt frivolously as opposed to recklessly before separation, in a situation not amounting to a breach of fiduciary duty - even over the prior objection of the other spouse - it is likely to be equally divided and Epstein reimbursements ordered.  Both spouses have, under California law, equal rights of management and control of the community property and community credit.

Courts in my experience are reluctant to find breaches of fiduciary duty in Esptein situations unless the behavior was fairly eggregious.  Charging 10 pairs of shoes at Macy's a month before separation may not be viewed as a big deal.  If the debt was incurred in pursuit of an illegal activity like supporting a drug habit or sex addiction, many judges are less reluctant to declare a breach. 

To illustrate another twist, if the credit card was used to pay the spouse's tuition expense instead a child's schooling as in my example above, it may also be unfair to charge the non-schooled parent with one-half the tuition portion of the credit card balance.  A court is likely to look at whether this schooling benefited the community in some way before splitting that debt betwen the parties - i.e., because of the schooling did the student spouse earn more money which was then contributed to the community standard of living and so confer a benefit on both?  Pure student loans are usually awarded to the party who incurred the debt as their separate property obligation. 

• Evaluating sales proceeds

• Comparables

         The specific asset is valued based upon the actual sales of similar assets or properties with actual sales that can be tracked.  With professional practices, this is common with dental businesses which are commonly bought and sold, and so numbers from the sales of other dental practices may be persuasive to a court.  Whether this method is useful depends very much on the nature of the business - sometimes there is nothing comparable or little published information about comparable sales.   Comparables are also considering in setting the value of real estate. 

• Liquidation value

Sometimes businesses will be cut up into parts that are sold separately.  Sometimes the business is valued in terms of what these parts would sell for.  It is rarely used except when the parties intend to actually liquidate the company.  Liquidation value does not generally include valuing goodwill (because the assumption is there will be no on-going concern).  Goodwill is the nightmare component to valuing businesses.  Many people in divorce who manage the business believe strongly this is how businesses should be valued (in part because in the absence of an actual sale, it is a fiction to say what a buyer might pay when no such buyers as a practical matter exist).

• Book Value

This relies upon the company records to determine what 'retained value' is.  It is rarely used, because it is more a statement of how the company perceives itself, or structured (or even 'cooked') its books, than any objective indication of value.

• Adjusted book value

This is performed through a forensic audit.  Usually it is performed on a cash basis, and accounts receivable and much more must be analyzed.

• Going concern value

This describes a method that includes valuing the business as greater than the sum of its parts.  There are a number of factors that are used.

• Capitalized earnings

This is the most common method for valuing businesses used in California because courts find it to be most reliable.  If you hope to use a different method, you will need to justify why that method is fairer to the out-spouse. This method requires expensive forensics. 



It is not uncommon to bifurcate the question of business valuations to try them separately because often this is the thorniest issue to be decided in a dissolution or legal separation proceeding.  



The law of business valuations is extremely complex and even contradictory.  The purpose of this blog is merely to introduce the concepts.  I will develop these themes in more detail in additional family law blogs. 


Thurman W. Arnold III 

http://www.ThurmanArnold.com