In Re Marriage of Epstein
24 Cal.3d 76, 592 P.2d 1165, 154 Cal. Rptr. 413 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse who uses separate property after the date of separation to pay pre-existing community obligations is entitled to reimbursement from the community, unless the payments were made to fulfill a duty of spousal or child support.
Facts:
- The parties were married in 1954 and separated in April 1972.
- After separating, the wife and the parties' minor son remained in the family residence, which was a community asset.
- The husband used his post-separation earnings, which are his separate property, to make all mortgage, insurance, and tax payments on the family residence.
- During this same period, the husband also provided the wife with monthly cash payments for her and their son's living expenses.
- The husband withdrew $2,250 from a community property savings account to make an estimated tax payment on his 1973 income, which was his separate property.
- The wife, who was 48 at the time of trial, had been unemployed since 1954 and possessed a college degree but no recent job training or experience.
Procedural Posture:
- In a marital dissolution proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment dividing the community property and awarding support.
- The trial court ordered the family home to be sold and allowed the husband reimbursement from the proceeds for payments he made on the home after the parties' separation.
- The court did not require the husband to reimburse the community for community funds he used to pay taxes on his separate property income.
- The trial court awarded the wife spousal support of $750 per month but ordered that both the support and the court's jurisdiction to modify it would terminate on April 15, 1981.
- Both the husband and wife appealed various parts of the trial court's 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:
Does the rule presuming that a spouse's use of separate funds for community purposes is a gift, for which no reimbursement is due, apply to payments made after the parties have separated?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
No. The rule that presumes a spouse's use of separate funds for community purposes is a non-reimbursable gift does not apply to payments made after the parties have separated. The rational basis for presuming a gift, which is rooted in the affection and generosity of the marital state, is no longer present after separation. Applying the no-reimbursement rule post-separation would unfairly charge community obligations exclusively to the paying spouse and would discourage the payment of community debts. However, reimbursement is inappropriate if the payments were actually made in discharge of a spouse's duty of support. As the trial court made no finding on whether the husband's house payments constituted support, the case must be remanded for this factual determination. The court also held that capital gains taxes from a court-ordered sale of an asset must be accounted for in the property division, that the husband must reimburse the community for using community funds for his separate tax debt, and that the trial court abused its discretion by terminating jurisdiction over spousal support after a long-term marriage without evidence the wife would be self-supporting.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical exception to the no-reimbursement rule of See v. See, creating what are now commonly known as 'Epstein credits.' The decision designates the date of separation as a bright line where the presumption of a gift for using separate property for community benefit ceases, and a right to reimbursement arises. This provides a clear, default rule for handling the common scenario of one spouse paying community debts from separate funds pending a final dissolution judgment. The opinion also reinforces the prohibition, established in In re Marriage of Morrison, against trial courts terminating spousal support jurisdiction speculatively after a long-term marriage, thereby protecting economically dependent spouses.
