In Re Marriage of Eastis

California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 1975 No. 13834Published

Before: Gardner

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while community assets must be divided equally under the Family Law Act, trial courts have discretion to allocate remaining community obligations based on the parties' respective earning capacities and other equitable factors.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its unequal division of community assets and obligations.
Whether community obligations must be divided equally between spouses when no assets remain or after assets are divided.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Civil Code, section 4800 provides that the court shall divide the community property equally.”

“Obligations, standing by themselves, are not property.”

47 Cal.App.3d 459 (1975) 120 Cal. Rptr. 861 In re the Marriage of CHARLOTTE ANN and THOMAS LLOYD EASTIS.

THOMAS LLOYD EASTIS, Appellant,

CHARLOTTE ANN EASTIS, Respondent.

Docket No. 13834. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two.

April 23, 1975. [461] COUNSEL

Covington & Crowe and Donald G. Haslam for Appellant.

George P. Hobson, Jr., for Respondent.

OPINION

GARDNER, J.

After a childless marriage of three years' duration, wife filed an action for dissolution of the marriage and, after a contested trial, the court entered a judgment of dissolution.

[462] (1) The court found that the wife had waived spousal support. It further found that the parties had community assets totalling $5,250 and community liabilities of $6,450. The wife was awarded community assets valued at $3,500 and ordered to pay $1,000 in community obligations. Thus, the net assets awarded to the wife amounted to $2,500. The husband was awarded community assets valued at $1,750 and ordered to pay $5,450 of community obligations. This left the husband with a net deficit of $3,700.

Husband appeals from that portion of the interlocutory judgment dividing the community assets and obligations.

Rather obviously the court was in error in its division of the community property of the parties. Civil Code, section 4800 provides that the court shall divide the community property equally. California Rules of Court define property as including "assets and obligations" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1201(d)) and further provide that the court "shall ascertain the nature and extent of all assets and obligations subject to disposition by the court ... and shall divide such assets and obligations as provided in the Family Law Act." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1242; In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 43 Cal. App.3d 1039 [118 Cal. Rptr. 232]; In re Marriage of Carter, 19 Cal. App.3d 479 [97 Cal. Rptr. 274].) This was not done in the instant case. The matter must be returned to the trial court in order to effect an equal division of the meager assets. (2), (3) (See fn. 1.) Just how that is to be done we leave to the ingenuity of the trial judge.[1]

In Re Marriage of Eastis

AI Brief

OPINION

GARDNER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief