Rossi v. Rossi
2001 Daily Journal DAR 6401, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270, 90 Cal. App. 4th 34 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Family Code § 1101(h), when a spouse's breach of fiduciary duty in a dissolution proceeding includes the fraudulent concealment of a community asset, the court must award 100% of that asset to the other spouse as a penalty.
Facts:
- Denise Rossi and Thomas Rossi were married in 1971.
- In November 1996, Denise joined a lottery pool with coworkers.
- In late December 1996, the lottery pool won a $6.68 million jackpot, and Denise's share was determined to be $1,336,000, paid in annual installments.
- After learning of the win, Denise consulted with the Lottery Commission about how to avoid sharing the prize with Thomas.
- In early January 1997, Denise filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
- Denise actively concealed the lottery winnings by using her mother's address for all correspondence and checks from the California Lottery.
- During the dissolution process, Denise completed financial disclosure forms, including a schedule of assets and debts, but did not list the lottery winnings as either separate or community property.
- The parties' marital settlement agreement included a warranty that each party had fully disclosed all property, whether separate or community.
Procedural Posture:
- In January 1997, Denise Rossi filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Thomas Rossi in the Los Angeles Superior Court (trial court).
- A judgment of dissolution incorporating the parties' marital settlement agreement was entered on April 7, 1997.
- In May 1999, Thomas discovered the existence of the lottery winnings.
- In July 1999, Thomas filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the dissolution judgment and requested an award of 100% of the lottery winnings pursuant to Family Code § 1101(h).
- The trial court found that Denise had committed fraud and awarded 100% of the lottery winnings to Thomas.
- Denise Rossi (appellant) appealed the trial court's postjudgment order to the California Court of Appeal, with Thomas Rossi as the appellee.
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 intentional and fraudulent concealment of a community property asset during divorce proceedings require the court, under Family Code § 1101(h), to award 100% of that asset to the other spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Epstein, J.
Yes. A spouse's fraudulent concealment of a community asset during divorce proceedings warrants the mandatory penalty of awarding 100% of that asset to the non-breaching spouse. The court found substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Denise's concealment of the lottery winnings constituted fraud, oppression, and malice as defined by Civil Code § 3294. Denise's actions, including consulting the Lottery Commission on how to hide the winnings, using her mother's address for correspondence, and failing to disclose the asset on multiple legal documents, demonstrated a clear intent to deprive Thomas of his property rights. The court rejected Denise's claims that the winnings were a gift and thus her separate property, finding her testimony not credible. The court held that this case presented the precise circumstance Family Code § 1101(h) was designed to address, making the 100% award a proper and necessary sanction to enforce the absolute duty of full disclosure between spouses.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the severe and mandatory nature of the penalty for fraudulent asset concealment in California divorce proceedings under Family Code § 1101(h). It clarifies that when a spouse's actions rise to the level of fraud, oppression, or malice, the court lacks discretion to award less than 100% of the concealed asset to the other spouse. The decision also dismisses equitable defenses, such as the 'unclean hands' of the wronged party, emphasizing that the statutory penalty is unambiguous and provides no exceptions. This precedent serves as a powerful deterrent against financial misconduct during dissolution and reinforces the paramount importance of the fiduciary duty of full and accurate disclosure between spouses.
