Marr. of Ficke
157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 870
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Julie and Greg Ficke divorced after ~15 years of marriage; two children were teenagers at judgment.
- Trial court awarded Julie 95% custody; Greg had income of $8,088/month with two rental properties; Julie had $251/month hard money income from a start-up pet insurance business.
- Court imputed $13,333/month to Julie in earning capacity, reducing child support; court also ordered Julie to pay $700/month spousal support to Greg, netting Julie $668/month.
- Community/property split gave Greg Monte Mar (mostly his separate property) and Boardwalk with a community interest; Julie received liquid assets; Greg received the family home and other assets.
- The trial judge highlighted Greg’s assets, health, and self-sufficiency; Julie’s earnings were described as a startup, with travel/time away from children.
- On appeal, the court reversed the child and spousal support orders, remanding for redetermination, but affirmed certain property allocations (Boardwalk and severance treatment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of income to custodial parent for child support | Ficke argues imputation harmed children by reducing funds for them. | Ficke contends imputation was warranted under §4058(b) and the court’s discretion. | Imputation reversed; not supported by substantial evidence that benefited children. |
| Spousal support to a self-supporting spouse | Julie contends spousal support to Greg is inappropriate given his self-sufficiency. | Greg argues a need for support based on marital standards and assets. | Reversed; spousal support to the self-supporting Greg improper; remanded. |
| Boardwalk community interest and Boardwalk mortgage payments | Julie argues court should treat all post-marriage mortgage payments as community. | Greg contends there was no commingling and mortgage payments were from separate funds. | Boardwalk community interest properly determined; no requirement to trace commingled funds; severance-related issues sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. App. 2001) (imputation of custodial income only if in children's best interests)
- In re Marriage of Mosley, 165 Cal.App.4th 1375 (Cal. App. 2008) (imputation must be in children's best interests and supported by evidence)
- In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. App. 2011) (imputation standards tied to best interests of children; evidentiary support required)
- In re Marriage of Ackerman, 146 Cal.App.4th 191 (Cal. App. 2006) (modest asset-based imputation where best interests of children are served)
- In re Marriage of LaBass & Munsee, 56 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. App. 1997) (discusses custodial imputation and time with children; caution against harsh implications)
- In re Marriage of Paulin, 46 Cal.App.4th 1378 (Cal. App. 1996) (imputation considerations in hardship context; balance with children’s interests)
- In re Marriage of Ilas, 12 Cal.App.4th 1630 (Cal. App. 1993) (economic decisions within child support context)
- In re See, 64 Cal.2d 778 (Supreme Court 1966) (principles of tracing commingled funds)
- In re Marriage of Bardzik, 165 Cal.App.4th 1291 (Cal. App. 2010) (time with children and employment balance in support decisions)
- In re Rosan, 24 Cal.App.3d 885 (Cal. App. 1972) (spousal support considerations for long marriages)