Ciprari v. Ciprari (In re Ciprari)
242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 900
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Dorothy and Joseph Ciprari were married in 1995; separation and start of dissolution proceedings occurred August 13, 2010; final judgment entered March 18, 2016.
- At marriage Joe had substantial separate property (stipulated $2,053,573), including a brokerage account that later became commingled with community funds through salary, bonuses and other deposits; combined commingled investment accounts grew to about $6.9 million by end of 2014.
- Joe presented an extensive forensic tracing (≈17,000 entries, 23 accounts) allocating purchases, dividends and withdrawals pro rata between community and separate funds, concluding roughly $3.79 million of the invested balance was separate property (net separate property due Joe ≈ $5.18 million after reimbursements).
- DeeDee challenged the tracing methodology, alleged fiduciary breaches for using community funds to fund children's 529 accounts and an irrevocable life insurance trust, and contested pendente lite and permanent child/spousal support orders and a postjudgment denial of additional attorney/accountant fees.
- Trial court accepted Joe’s tracing and found no fiduciary breach for the 529 contributions and life insurance (treating them as mutual gifts/estate planning), awarded permanent child support, adjusted certain temporary support amounts, and denied additional fee award; appellate court affirmed most findings but reversed recalculation of 2014 pendente lite support, reversed permanent spousal support award, and reversed denial of additional fees (remanding limited issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ciprari) | Defendant's Argument (Joe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization/tracing of commingled investment accounts | Tracing method was legally invalid because California recognizes only direct tracing or exhaustion/family-expense tracing; Joe failed to show intent to use separate funds for particular purchases and ignored community funds in other accounts | Tracing was detailed, conservative (presumed purchases made with community funds when available), combined direct and exhaustion principles, and adequately traced separate funds within each account | Court: Tracing was permissible and supported by substantial evidence; trial court did not err in adopting it |
| Alleged breach of fiduciary duty for funding children's 529s and life insurance trust with community funds | Joe violated Fam. Code §1100(b) by disposing of community property without DeeDee's written consent | Contributions and insurance purchases were part of a mutual estate plan and constituted gifts mutually given to children; no breach | Court: Substantial evidence supports trial court's implied finding these were mutual gifts/estate planning; no fiduciary breach |
| Retrospective modification of 2014 pendente lite child and spousal support (use of 2013 tax returns) | Using 2013 returns (instead of available 2014 returns) depressed support because DeeDee’s 2013 included a large nonrecurring capital gain; 2014 returns were available and more accurate for 2014 awards | Court may use trailing-year figures; tax returns are presumptively correct; trial court used 2013 as appropriate | Court: Abuse of discretion — remanded to recalculate 2014 pendente lite support using 2014 tax returns or other authoritative 2014 income evidence |
| Permanent spousal support amount ($5,000/mo) | Award too low given Joe’s high monthly taxable income (~$47,040) and the marital upper-class standard of living; trial court failed to make findings tying award to needs/standard of living | Trial court considered §4320 factors, found DeeDee’s expense declarations inflated and awarded reasonable support | Court: Reversed — trial court did not adequately explain or relate award to §4320 factors and marital standard of living; remand for recalculation and clearer findings |
| Denial of additional postjudgment attorneys' and accountants' fees | Trial court erred by denying mandatory need-based fee award under §§2030/2032 given disparity in access to funds and Joe’s greater ability to pay; many fees necessary to litigate tracing caused by Joe’s commingling | Trial court found overall fees excessive/overlitigated and that many of DeeDee’s accounting fees duplicated Joe’s work; therefore denied additional award | Court: Reversed — implied findings showed disparity and ability to pay, so trial court must award reasonably necessary fees unless specific findings justify denial; remand for reconsideration with granular reasonableness inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- See v. See, 64 Cal.2d 778 (Cal. 1966) (family-expense presumption and exhaustion tracing principles)
- In re Marriage of Mix, 14 Cal.3d 604 (Cal. 1975) (describing direct tracing and family-expense tracing as methods to establish post-marital property as separate)
- In re Marriage of Cochran, 87 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (tracing separate funds in commingled accounts and family-expense presumption application)
- In re Marriage of Frick, 181 Cal.App.3d 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (presumption that payments from commingled accounts are community funds unless traced)
- In re Marriage of Rosen, 105 Cal.App.4th 808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (using most recent tax return as basis for support; remand when more probative later-year return exists)