In Re Marriage of Schultz
105 Cal. App. 3d 846, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1831, 164 Cal. Rptr. 653 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse's negligence in managing a community debt, which results in an increased liability, does not constitute 'deliberate misappropriation' under California's Family Law Act, and therefore does not justify an unequal division of that debt upon dissolution.
Facts:
- Carol Schultz and Alvin Schultz were married for 13 years and accumulated over $20,000 in community debts, with their primary asset being the family residence.
- Among their community debts was a $4,250 loan from Conrad Blasco.
- After the couple separated, Blasco sued Alvin to collect the debt.
- Alvin represented himself in the lawsuit and, due to an alleged failure to receive a notice of trial, Blasco obtained a default judgment against him.
- This default judgment increased the community obligation to Blasco to approximately $5,000.
- The Schultz's family home was sold, and the proceeds were to be used to pay community debts before being divided between the parties.
- Carol also claimed to have made payments of $1,844.67 towards other community debts after the initial dissolution judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Schultz, as petitioner, sought a dissolution of her marriage to Alvin Schultz in the superior court (trial court).
- The superior court entered an interlocutory judgment of dissolution, ordering the family home sold and the proceeds used to satisfy community debts before equal division.
- A post-judgment dispute arose over the distribution of the proceeds from the home's sale.
- Following an in-chambers conference, the superior court issued a post-judgment order that unequally divided one community debt, assigning a larger portion to Alvin due to his handling of a lawsuit.
- The order also granted Carol a credit for payments she allegedly made toward community debts.
- Alvin Schultz (appellant) appealed the post-judgment order to the California Court of Appeal. Carol Schultz (respondent) did not file a responsive brief.
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's negligence in managing a community debt, which results in an increased liability, constitute 'deliberate misappropriation' under California Civil Code section 4800, subdivision (b), justifying an unequal division of that debt upon dissolution?
Opinions:
Majority - Jefferson (Bernard), J.
No. A spouse's negligent mishandling of a community liability does not rise to the level of 'deliberate misappropriation' required to justify an unequal division of community property. The general rule mandates that where community assets exceed liabilities, the residual assets and obligations must be divided equally. The statutory exception for 'deliberate misappropriation' refers to calculated thievery or fraudulent conduct, not poor judgment or negligence. Alvin's failure to properly defend against the Blasco lawsuit, which resulted in a default judgment and an increased community debt, was a form of mishandling, not a deliberate act to harm the community. Therefore, imposing a penalty on Alvin by assigning him a greater share of the debt was erroneous. The entire Blasco judgment remains a community debt to be divided equally.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the narrow scope of exceptions to the statutory mandate for equal division of community property in California. By holding that mere negligence in managing a community liability is not 'deliberate misappropriation,' the court reinforces that the exception is reserved for conduct amounting to intentional wrongdoing, like fraud or theft. This decision provides a clear boundary for trial courts, preventing them from using equitable principles to penalize a spouse for poor financial management or legal missteps. The opinion also serves as a strong reminder to trial counsel of the importance of creating a complete evidentiary record, as the court reversed a credit award due to the absence of supporting testimony or documentation in the trial transcript.
