In Re Marriage of Tallman

Opinion

marriage to Geryl Tallman. He asserts the trial court erred in determining the amount of the reimbursement to which she was entitled for spending her separate property funds to extinguish a debt encumbering the community residence Civ. Code,

1

(former § 4800.2, now Fam. Code, § 2640). We agree with Mr. Tallman’s contention.

Facts

The parties married on May 29, 1980, and separated on February 6, 1990. On January 24, 1985, they purchased a home in Lakeside. They made a $10,125 down payment, $6,818 of which came from Mrs. Tallman’s separate funds. Part of the balance owed was secured by two trust deeds in favor of the Scotts, one for $48,500 and the other for $4,500, for a total of $53,000; the remaining balance was secured by a trust deed in favor of Security Pacific Bank. On January 24, 1985, Mrs. Tallman paid the Scotts $40,000 of her separate property funds

2

and in exchange they forgave the $53,000 debt.

At trial on October 30, 1992, the court found the house’s gross fair market value was $143,000, and as of the date of separation, the parties owed

[1699]

$68,200, leaving a net fair market value of $74,800. It ruled Mrs. Tallman was entitled to a $59,818 reimbursement ($53,000 plus $6,818), which when subtracted from the $74,800 left $14,982, or $7,491 for each party. It gave her the option of purchasing Mr. Tallman’s interest in the property within 90 days of counsel’s determination of total offsets.

Discussion

Preliminarily, Mrs. Tallman urges us to dismiss this appeal. She argues Mr. Tallman failed to seek and obtain a statement of decision (Code Civ. Proc., § 632) and stipulated to the release of all exhibits, and we cannot determine the legal basis for the trial court’s order from the remarks it made while rendering its decision.

We need not look to the trial court’s reasoning, but only to the result reached.

(Troche