In Re Marriage of Dellaria & Blickman-Dellaria
172 Cal. App. 4th 196 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Family Code section 2550, once a marital dissolution proceeding has commenced, an agreement between the parties to divide the community estate unequally is unenforceable unless it is made in a written agreement or as an oral stipulation in open court.
Facts:
- David M. Dellaria and Elizabeth L. Blickman-Dellaria married on August 27, 1989.
- The parties separated on December 31, 2001.
- Elizabeth contended that in March 2003, the parties reached an oral agreement to divide their major community assets.
- Following the alleged agreement, the family home and two brokerage accounts were transferred to Elizabeth, who in turn refinanced the home and gave $217,562 cash to David.
- Two other real properties and the community business were transferred to or retained by David.
- David denied that the parties had reached a final settlement agreement and provided alternative explanations for the property transfers.
- The alleged agreement was never reduced to a signed writing, nor was it stipulated to by the parties in open court.
Procedural Posture:
- David M. Dellaria filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Elizabeth L. Blickman-Dellaria in the trial court.
- The trial court conducted a bifurcated trial on the issue of whether the parties had entered into an enforceable oral agreement to divide their community property.
- The trial court found that a fully executed oral agreement existed and entered a judgment dividing the property unequally in accordance with that agreement.
- The trial court also ordered David to pay $175,000 in sanctions under Family Code section 271, partly for rejecting Elizabeth's offer to settle based on the oral agreement.
- David (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the enforceability of the oral agreement.
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 California Family Code section 2550 render a post-separation, out-of-court oral agreement for the division of community property unenforceable, even if the agreement has been fully performed by the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruvolo, P. J.
Yes. California Family Code section 2550 renders an oral, out-of-court agreement for the division of community property unenforceable. The statute mandates that in a dissolution proceeding, a court must divide the community estate equally unless the parties have a written agreement or make an oral stipulation in open court. The court adopted the reasoning of In re Marriage of Maricle, holding that allowing enforcement of a private oral agreement would sanction an exception to the statute not contemplated by the Legislature. The purpose of the statute's formal requirements is to prevent overreaching by one party and to ensure that property rights are not dependent on faulty recollection or false testimony. The argument that the agreement was 'fully executed' does not create an exception, because once a dissolution action is filed, any division of community property is governed by the strict requirements of section 2550.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the bright-line rule established by Family Code section 2550, emphasizing that statutory formalities for property division in a dissolution are paramount. The court clarifies that equitable doctrines, such as full performance of an oral contract, cannot override the explicit statutory requirements of a writing or an in-court stipulation. This holding promotes legal certainty and discourages litigation over the existence and terms of alleged oral agreements by requiring parties to formalize any settlement that deviates from an equal division. For future cases, this serves as a strong precedent against enforcing informal property settlements made after a dissolution proceeding has begun.
