Campi v. Campi
212 Cal. App. 4th 1565
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mary filed for dissolution in May 2003 after separation on January 4, 2002; trial ended December 9, 2010, with a March 18, 2011 statement of decision and a December 15, 2011 judgment.
- The case involved a stipulated value of the family residence at $679,000 and credits/offsets to determine the equalizing payment; George sought to limit his payment.
- George retired in 2009 and began receiving disability; Mary became a pharmacy technician but sustained injuries in 2005 that impaired her ability to work.
- A 2007 stipulated order gave George the Pacifica home and detailed credits, with Mary receiving $30,000 from a brokerage account and potential adjustments based on community vs. separate property.
- George later obtained new counsel and moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance; the trial court denied the motion and declared the judgment as of the March 18 order, with final judgment entered December 15, 2011.
- The appellate court treated the notice of appeal as timely and affirmed the trial court’s rulings, including the valuation methodology and spousal support/arrearage determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Campi argues the March 18 decision was final and the October–December 2011 notice was timely due to later judgment entry. | Campi contends the March 18 order is not a final judgment; the appeal was untimely under rule 8.104(a)(3). | Appeal deemed timely due to December 15, 2011 judgment notice. |
| Standard of review for dissolution rulings | Campi asserts trial court misapplied standards in valuing assets and credits. | Mary argues proper abuse-of-discretion and substantial-evidence review apply within statutory limits. | Court applies abuse of discretion and substantial-evidence standards as appropriate and upholds the court’s rulings. |
| Valuation of the residence under the stipulation | Campi contends the 2007 stipulated value should govern and the 2010 trial should revalue; argues conditionality and post-separation timing. | Mary maintains the stipulated value of $679,000 is controlling and properly used, with offsets accounted for at trial. | Court properly valued the residence pursuant to the stipulation and rejected challenges to the value. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel in dissolution | Campi asserts trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and seeks a new trial. | There is no right to counsel in dissolution proceedings; defense counsel was competent and Campi prevailed on many issues. | Ineffective assistance claims are rejected; no constitutional right to counsel in this context. |
| Spousal support, arrearages, interest, and adjustments | Campi argues there was insufficient evidence for support-related orders and disputes over arrearages and interest. | Mary contends the record supports the court’s discretionary determinations and calculations. | Support and adjustments supported by substantial evidence; 6% interest and other adjustments upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2007) (a statement of decision is not appealable when a final judgment follows; governs notice of entry)
- In re Marriage of Andresen, 28 Cal.App.4th 873 (Cal. App. 1994) (nondelegable judicial function; valuation must be substantively supported)
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. App. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for spousal support; requires evidence within statutory bounds)
- In re Marriage of Duncan, 90 Cal.App.4th 617 (Cal. App. 2001) (trial court’s valuation within range supported by substantial evidence)
- In re Marriage of Sherman, 133 Cal.App.4th 795 (Cal. App. 2005) (outdated valuation; relevance depends on context of dispute)
- Walters v. Walters, 91 Cal.App.3d 535 (Cal. App. 1979) (valuation issues concerning orders entered before trial)