Marriage of Henry CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 23, 2014 No. C070404Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the characterization of funds as a gift, the valuation of property improvements and business assets, and the distribution of community property. The trial court acted within its discretion and its findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding that $161,000 provided by a parent for property improvements was a gift.
Whether the trial court erred in its valuation of property improvements and the appellant's business assets.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding specific assets to the appellant at appraised values rather than ordering a sale.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court has broad discretion to determine the manner in which community property is divided.”

“Given the evidence before it, the trial court’s determination that the $161,000 was a gift from Betty Perry to her daughter Georgia was supported by substantial evidence.”

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Filed 1/23/14 Marriage of Henry CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

In re the Marriage of GEORGIA and MICHAEL C070404 HENRY.

GEORGIA HENRY, (Super. Ct. No. FL037906)

Respondent,

MICHAEL HENRY,

Appellant.

After 24 years of marriage, Georgia Henry (petitioner in the trial court) and Michael Henry divorced.1 Following a three-day court trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision on numerous matters. Michael appeals, contending the court erred

1 For purposes of clarity we shall refer to the parties by their first names.

(1) in finding $161,000 from Georgia’s mother to build a cottage and upgrade a septic system was a gift, (2) in valuing the improvements, and (3) in awarding accounts receivable and a 1929 Ford Phaeton to him. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Michael and Georgia married in 1985 and separated in 2009. Michael was a welder of 20 years with his own business. He also was an avid tool collector. Georgia worked for Fashion Optical Displays at the time of trial. She earned $15 an hour, grossing about $2,850 per month. In 2004 Georgia’s mother, Betty Perry, sold her house and the proceeds, $161,000, were transferred into a joint bank account belonging to Georgia and her mother. The funds were used to construct a cottage in Michael and Georgia’s back yard and to upgrade the septic system that served both the main residence and the cottage. Georgia’s mother was to live in the cottage rent free for the rest of her life. An appraiser estimated the improvements increased the value of the parcel by $150,000. The property was valued at $215,000 prior to the improvements and $365,000 at the time of trial. The $150,000 in increased value was awarded to Georgia by the trial court under Family Code section 2640.2 Michael asserts he made only $12,654 in 2010, or $1,054 per month. He also had a $535 monthly truck payment. The court valued Michael’s business at $29,484: $20,000 in accounts receivable, $17,201 worth of work in process, and $3,190 in cash on hand, less $10,907 for business debts. The court awarded the business to Michael. In addition, the couple had numerous items of personal property appraised by an agreed-upon appraiser. Among the items was a 1929 Ford Phaeton, which was

Marriage of Henry CA3

AI Brief

MICHAEL HENRY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RAYE , P. J.

NICHOLSON , J.

ROBIE , J.

AI Brief