Gilmore v. Gilmore
45 Cal. 2d 142, 287 P.2d 769 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a spouse's separate property business increases in value during marriage, the community is entitled to the greater of a fair return on the separate property capital investment or the reasonable value of the spouse's services. The court may select the apportionment method that best achieves substantial justice based on the evidence.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 1946.
- Throughout the marriage, Plaintiff drank intoxicating liquor to excess, called Defendant vile names in public, was physically violent towards him, and refused sexual intercourse for over three years.
- Defendant owned interests in three incorporated automobile dealerships prior to the marriage, which was his separate property.
- During the marriage, the net worth of Defendant's separate property businesses increased from approximately $182,000 to $786,000.
- Defendant received substantial salaries from his businesses throughout the marriage, which were used for community expenses.
- The automobile dealerships were staffed by well-trained personnel, Defendant worked relatively short hours, and the car business experienced a period of tremendous growth.
- After Plaintiff filed for divorce in 1952, Defendant engaged in at least six acts of sexual intercourse with other women.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff wife filed an action for divorce against Defendant husband in a California trial court, alleging extreme cruelty, desertion, and adultery.
- Defendant husband filed a cross-complaint for divorce, alleging extreme cruelty.
- The trial court granted an interlocutory decree of divorce to the Defendant husband based on its finding of the Plaintiff wife's extreme cruelty.
- The trial court found that there was no community property, that the increased value of Defendant's businesses was his separate property, and denied alimony to the Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff wife, the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a spouse's separate property business increases in value during marriage, must the court calculate the community property portion by allocating a reasonable rate of return to the initial separate capital investment and treating the remainder as community, or may it instead treat the spouse's salary as the sole community interest if that salary is found to be adequate compensation for the spouse's efforts?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
No. The court is not bound to one specific method of apportionment. While the Pereira method (allocating a fair return on investment to separate property and the excess to the community) is one option, it is not required where circumstances show a different result is more appropriate. In this case, the trial court properly used an alternative method, akin to the Van Camp approach, by determining that the substantial salaries the Defendant received were adequate compensation for his community labor. The remaining increase in the business's value was therefore properly attributed to the separate property capital investment, especially given evidence that the growth was due to market conditions and the efforts of other employees, not just the Defendant's personal efforts. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying alimony to the Plaintiff, as her continuous course of extreme cruelty forfeited her right to support, and the Defendant's subsequent adultery after the marriage had already failed did not compel a different result.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in community property law for clarifying the two primary methods for apportioning the increase in value of a separate property business during a marriage: Pereira and Van Camp. The court establishes that trial courts are not locked into one formula but should choose the method that best reflects whether the business's growth was primarily due to the spouse's personal efforts (favoring Pereira) or the inherent nature and value of the capital investment (favoring Van Camp). This flexible, fact-based approach provides courts with the discretion to achieve equitable outcomes. The decision also reinforces the principle of comparative guilt in fault-based divorce systems, allowing a court to deny relief to a spouse whose misconduct was the primary cause of the marriage's failure.
Unlock the full brief for Gilmore v. Gilmore