Marriage of Marino CA2/6
Filed 7/21/15 Marriage of Marino CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re Marriage of MOLLY and JAMES E. 2d Civil No. B253677 MARINO. (Super. Ct. No. 1384748) (Santa Barbara County)
MOLLY MARINO,
Respondent,
v.
JAMES E. MARINO,
Appellant.
James E. Marino (Jim) appeals the trial court's judgment that he was not entitled to reimbursement under Family Code section 26401 for his separate property contribution to the home he shared with his former wife, Molly Marino (Molly).2 We conclude substantial evidence supports the court's finding that he failed to prove the amount of that contribution. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1982, Jim purchased a 30-year-old, 2,400-square-foot, one-story tract home in Santa Barbara. He financed the purchase with a $25,000 bank loan and a
1 All statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 To avoid confusion, we refer to the parties by their first names.
$136,590 loan from the sellers. There is no record of the purchase price or downpayment. In late 1985, he obtained another bank loan for $65,000 and the deed of trust on the $136,590 loan was reconveyed. The deed of trust on the $25,000 loan was reconveyed in January 1986. Molly moved into the home in 1986 and the parties married in 1988. Jim was a self-employed attorney and Molly worked for the City of Santa Barbara. After she moved into the house, she began making the monthly mortgage payments from her separate property funds. Following the marriage, the parties maintained their own checking accounts. Molly typically paid the mortgage, property taxes, hazard insurance premiums, utilities and repair expenses from community funds in her account. Occasionally Jim would give her community funds from his law practice checking account. A fire completely destroyed the home in 1990. Jim and Molly replaced it with a custom four-bedroom, four-bath home that was twice the size of their former home. They also added a pool. The $400,000 reconstruction was financed partly by insurance proceeds and partly by community funds. The insurance company also paid off the existing $65,000 deed of trust, leaving the property unencumbered. Title was vested in Jim as his separate property until 1997, when the parties decided they needed "to take some money out of the house." They borrowed $209,000 and used approximately $161,000 to pay several debts, including two premarital judgments against Jim totaling $56,000 plus $71,000 in tax arrearages that were partially a community obligation and partially Jim's premarital debt. During this period, Jim was suspended from practicing law. Molly signed the promissory note for the 1997 loan and Jim executed an interspousal grant deed transferring title to them both as community property. The value of the reconstructed house at that time was $925,000. In subsequent years, the parties refinanced the loan a number of times to pay community obligations as well as Jim's premarital debts. They increased the loan principal to $295,000 in 2002, to $330,000 in 2004, and to $395,000 in 2008. On each occasion, Molly signed the promissory note and
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)