In Re Marriage of Beltran
227 Cal. Rptr. 924, 183 Cal. App. 3d 292, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1807 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse whose criminal or tortious conduct directly results in the forfeiture of a community property asset must reimburse the community for the loss, preventing the innocent spouse from sharing in the financial penalty imposed for that misconduct.
Facts:
- Husband and Wife were married on October 14, 1976.
- Husband was a colonel in the United States Army, and during the marriage, he earned a military pension and accrued leave, a portion of which was community property.
- The couple finally separated on December 16, 1982.
- While the dissolution action was pending, Husband was convicted in a civilian court of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child.
- Subsequently, a military tribunal also convicted Husband of the same crime.
- As a result of the military conviction, Husband was dismissed from the Army and stripped of all military benefits, including his entire pension and accrued leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in a California superior court, which acted as the trial court.
- The trial court found that a portion of Husband's military pension and accrued leave were community property.
- In its final judgment, the trial court charged Husband with the value of the forfeited military benefits and ordered him to make an equalizing payment of $59,230.50 to Wife.
- Husband, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spouse whose criminal conduct leads to the forfeiture of a community property pension have to reimburse the community for the innocent spouse's share of that lost asset?
Opinions:
Majority - Newsom, J.
Yes. A spouse whose criminal conduct causes the forfeiture of a community asset must reimburse the community for the loss. The court reasoned by analogy to cases where one spouse uses community funds to pay a separate debt, which requires reimbursement to the community. Citing 'In re Marriage of Stitt', the court held that an innocent spouse should not be required to share in a loss created by the other spouse's separate criminal conduct. The court found no meaningful legal distinction between a loss incurred by voluntarily paying a debt and one imposed by forfeiture; in both scenarios, the culpable spouse's separate conduct caused a loss to the community. Therefore, as a matter of equity, the financial consequences of the criminal penalty should be borne solely by the husband, and the wife is entitled to be reimbursed for her share of the lost community property.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear equitable principle in community property law: financial losses resulting from a spouse's separate criminal or tortious conduct are the separate responsibility of that spouse. It extends the reasoning of 'In re Marriage of Stitt' from cases involving payment of debts (like attorney's fees for a criminal defense) to the direct forfeiture of a community asset as a penalty. This precedent protects the innocent spouse's interest in the community estate from being diminished by the other's wrongdoing. The ruling also provides an important clarification of federal law, confirming that the 10-year marriage requirement in the FUSFSPA does not bar state courts from classifying military pensions as community property and ordering offsetting awards in marriages of shorter duration.
