Marriage of Duvigneaud CA2/4, B258016

Kirby and Teresa Duvigneaud married in 1991; Kirby was incarcerated and later serving life with parole possible. Kirby inherited a Los Angeles house which was sold in 1996.\
Teresa represented she would deposit the net sale proceeds (after closing costs and a car purchase) into an account or trust for Kirby’s benefit; only about $3,600 was deposited into Kirby’s prison account.\
Teresa produced evidence she used most sale proceeds (~$65,000) to pay for repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities and to reimburse lenders; she also paid a grandmother $20,500, bought a car (~$27,816), paid for prison-related expenses (~$17,500), and leased an apartment to support a parole application.\
Kirby moved to modify the dissolution judgment (May 2014) seeking credit/reimbursement for his separate-property sale proceeds; Teresa opposed, asserting she expended funds on maintenance and community/related expenses.\
At the June 2015 hearing Kirby appeared by phone, repeatedly ignored judicial directions to stop speaking and was disconnected; the trial court found Teresa’s testimony credible and denied Kirby’s request for credit/reimbursement.\
Kirby appealed, arguing (1) denial of due process when his telephonic appearance was cut off, and (2) trial error in refusing to award reimbursement; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kirby)	Defendant's Argument (Teresa)	Held
Whether disconnecting Kirby’s telephonic appearance denied due process	Cutting off his phone prevented him from fully presenting his case	Court had warned rules of conduct; Kirby repeatedly disobeyed and was given time to speak before disconnect	No due process violation; trial court acted within discretion and any error was harmless
Whether Kirby was entitled to credit/reimbursement for separate-property sale proceeds	Sale proceeds were his separate property and he was owed ~$70,508 credit because most proceeds weren’t deposited to his account	Teresa traced substantial expenditures of the proceeds to repairs, taxes, reimbursements, a car (with Kirby’s approval), prison expenses and leasing an apartment; no traceable community property remained for reimbursement	Denied: appellant failed to carry burden to trace separate funds to community property or show statutory entitlement; trial court’s credibility findings supported

Yarbrough v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 197 (right of indigent prisoner to meaningful access to courts; telephonic appearance may be required)
Jameson v. Desta, 179 Cal.App.4th 672 (trial court’s discretion in permitting/conditioning telephonic participation)
Wantuch v. Davis, 32 Cal.App.4th 786 (same: meaningful access and discretion over telephonic appearances)
People v. Lee, 51 Cal.4th 620 (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)
In re Marriage of Cooper, 247 Cal.App.4th 983 (tracing requirement for reimbursement from separate funds)
In re Marriage of Feldner, 40 Cal.App.4th 617 (paying spouse must trace contributions to separate property source for reimbursement)