In re Marriage of Kindschi CA4/3, G057267

Joyce and Ronald Kindschi married in 1975, separated in 2014; no minor children. Joyce was a retired teacher; Ronald a self-employed financial advisor.
The marital home (originally community property) was awarded to Joyce in Ronald’s bankruptcy, then later deeded back to both; sale of the home after separation produced $1,378,542, which the court ordered held in trust pending final judgment.
Joyce sought pendente lite support and discovery; Ronald repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders and was sanctioned; temporary support orders and multiple interim disbursements from the trust were entered.
Forensic accountants disputed Ronald’s income; the trial court credited Joyce’s expert (Sperry) and found Ronald’s monthly income about $9,500, awarding Joyce spousal support and finding large arrears.
The court found Joyce had contributed over $1.5 million of separate-property equity to the house and ruled the trust sale proceeds were Joyce’s separate property, ordering reimbursement adjustments and awarding Joyce sanctions (attorney/expert fees) for Ronald’s breaches of fiduciary duty and discovery failures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Joyce)	Defendant's Argument (Ronald)	Held
Spousal support income finding	Court should credit expert evidence showing Ronald earns ~$9,500/month	Court improperly imputed income; Ronald had only Social Security and no other income	Court affirmed: substantial evidence (both accountants) supports $9,500/month finding; no improper imputation
Release of trust funds for Ronald's attorney fees	Deny release; funds presumptively Joyce’s and Ronald had not proven need	Ronald needed releases to retain counsel; claimed inability to pay	Court acted within discretion: prior disbursements totaled $115,000; later oral requests lacked required evidentiary showing of need under Fam. Code §2030
Characterization of sale proceeds (separate vs. community)	Proceeds are Joyce’s separate property because her separate contributions to acquisition exceeded sale proceeds (§2640)	Ronald argued he was entitled to at least half; referenced loans/trust but failed to explain or trace	Ronald forfeited challenge by failing to cite and discuss material evidence; court’s finding that proceeds were Joyce’s separate property upheld
Court duties to pro se litigant	Not raised by Joyce	Ronald contends court failed to assist, refer to self-help, or help admit his expert evidence	Court did not abuse discretion; judges need not coach pro se litigants and Ronald is held to same standards as attorneys

In re Marriage of Reynolds, 63 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. 1998) (retirement cannot be ignored; court must not impose an improper capacity-to-earn standard when evaluating support)
Rayii v. Gatica, 218 Cal.App.4th 1402 (Cal. 2013) (appellant forfeits sufficiency challenge by citing only favorable evidence and failing to address opposing record)
In re Marriage of Ciprari, 32 Cal.App.5th 83 (Cal. 2019) (review standards for statements of decision and credibility findings)
In re Marriage of Duncan, 90 Cal.App.4th 617 (Cal. 2001) (standards for attorney fee awards under Fam. Code §2030 and discretion of trial court)
In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 164 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. 2008) (burden on applicant to prove necessity for fee award)
In re Marriage of Gonzales, 51 Cal.App.3d 340 (Cal. 1975) (need is a prerequisite to attorney fee awards in dissolution cases)
In re Marriage of Sullivan, 37 Cal.3d 762 (Cal. 1984) (purpose of fee awards is to ensure access to legal representation throughout proceedings)
Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments, 148 Cal.App.4th 1262 (Cal. 2007) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys)
In re Kobayashi v. Superior Court, 175 Cal.App.4th 536 (Cal. 2009) (limits on duties a court owes to self-represented litigants)