Marriage of Davis
61 Cal. 4th 846
| Cal. | 2015Background
- Husband (Keith Davis) and wife (Sheryl Davis) married 1993; wife filed for dissolution in 2008 and asserted separation date of June 1, 2006. Husband later amended to 2011 after she moved out.
- From 2001–2006 the couple increasingly lived "separate lives" (separate bedrooms at some point, separate finances and travel, stopped sexual relations) but continued to occupy the same marital residence and to share some family activities and a joint account.
- Wife announced in June 2006 she was "through" and reallocated finances, opened separate accounts, and began working full time; husband continued to contribute to household expenses and left his job later that year.
- Trial court found date of separation June 1, 2006; Court of Appeal affirmed but rejected the bright-line rule that spouses must occupy separate residences to be "living separate and apart" under Fam. Code § 771(a).
- Supreme Court granted review to decide whether "living separate and apart" requires separate residences and reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that separate residences plus intent objectively evidenced are required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “living separate and apart” under Fam. Code § 771(a) can occur while spouses share the same residence | Wife: date of separation should be based on totality of circumstances; living "separate lives" and intent to end marriage suffice even if cohabiting | Husband: bright-line rule needed—spouses must occupy separate residences to trigger § 771(a) | Held: "living separate and apart" requires separate residences and at least one spouse's intent to end the marriage objectively evidenced by words or conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Norviel, 102 Cal.App.4th 1152 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held physical living apart is an indispensable threshold for separation under predecessor law)
- In re Marriage of Valli, 58 Cal.4th 1396 (Cal. 2014) (discusses community property characterization generally)
- Baragry v. Baragry, 73 Cal.App.3d 444 (Cal. Ct. App.) (separate residence not dispositive; conduct must evidence final break)
- In re Marriage of Hardin, 38 Cal.App.4th 448 (Cal. Ct. App.) (date of separation when intent not to resume marriage and actions bespeak finality)
- In re Marriage of von der Nuell, 23 Cal.App.4th 730 (Cal. Ct. App.) (requires both subjective intent and conduct evidencing final break)