Oliverez v. Oliverez (In re Oliverez)
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Donna (Wife) filed for dissolution in 2007; parties executed a 2008 Marital Settlement Agreement (Agreement) but the trial court initially refused to enforce it; a later trial led to a judgment incorporating the Agreement that this Court reversed in Oliverez (2015) and remanded.
- After remand the trial court (based on the 2012–2013 trial record and post-remand briefs/hearings) issued a December 30, 2016 Statement of Decision and Final Judgment resolving valuation and disposition of three properties: Silverwood (family residence), University (4‑unit rental), and La Madrona (20‑acre lot).
- The court ordered appraisal and sale of the three properties at remand-date values (post‑trial), splitting proceeds equally except for La Madrona (it characterized part as Husband’s separate property).
- The court found Husband not credible and rejected his requests for Epstein credits (reimbursement for alleged separate‑fund payments to community debts) and limited reimbursement to Husband for a $600,000 equalization payment as only half reimbursable (characterized as presumptively community funds).
- Husband appealed; this Court affirms most trial-court rulings (valuation on remand, sale order, denial of Epstein credits), but reverses the La Madrona characterization and remands to treat La Madrona as wholly community property and recalculate reimbursement under Fam. Code §2640.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate valuation date for community property after remand | Court must value assets as of the 2012/2013 trial (Fam. Code §2552) and should adopt trial evidence values | Court urged reappraisal and valuation at remand/Judgment date due to changed circumstances and stale 2012 valuations | No abuse of discretion; court may set valuation date at remand under equitable principles (Hayden), here remand date was reasonable given credibility findings and market change |
| Whether court could order sale instead of awarding assets to Husband | Sale unnecessary; Husband should be awarded properties (or credited) to account for alleged separate‑fund paydowns | Sale and split of proceeds is reasonable and equitable | No abuse of discretion; trial court has broad discretion to order sale to effect equal division (Connolly, Davis, Cream) |
| Characterization of La Madrona (community v. separate) | Parties stipulated at trial La Madrona was community property (with Husband entitled to §2640 reimbursement); trial court mischaracterized part as Husband’s separate property | Wife at remand urged sale/division but acknowledged earlier stipulation that it was community | Reversed as to this point: record shows stipulation to treat La Madrona as wholly community; trial court erred and must recalc reimbursement on remand |
| Epstein credits and characterization of $600,000 equalization payment | Husband claims uncontroverted evidence he used separate funds post-separation to pay community debts so is entitled to Epstein credits and full reimbursement of $600,000 | Trial court found Husband’s documents and testimony not credible; $600,000 deemed presumptively community so only $300,000 reimbursable | No abuse of discretion: credibility determinations supported denial of Epstein credits; Husband forfeited appellate challenge to $600,000 characterization by not objecting below |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Oliverez, 238 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prior appeal reversing judgment that enforced the Agreement)
- In re Marriage of Hayden, 124 Cal.App.3d 72 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may value property at remand date under equitable principles)
- In re Marriage of Connolly, 23 Cal.3d 590 (Cal. 1979) (broad trial‑court discretion in method of dividing community estate)
- In re Marriage of Epstein, 24 Cal.3d 76 (Cal. 1979) (spouse using separate funds post‑separation to pay community debts is entitled to reimbursement)
- In re Marriage of Davis, 68 Cal.App.3d 294 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may order sale of community real property to effect equal division)
- In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App.) (sale of assets permissible but court should not abdicate valuation/division duties; family business exception)
- In re Marriage of Holmgren, 60 Cal.App.3d 869 (Cal. Ct. App.) (sale of residence permissible when necessary to equalize division)