Todd v. Todd
272 Cal.App.2d 786, 78 Cal. Rptr. 131, 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 2334 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a professional education acquired with community funds is not a divisible community asset, the economic potential and value of a professional practice established during the marriage is community property subject to equitable division in a divorce.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and defendant were married on January 25, 1947.
- Three months before the marriage, defendant reenrolled at Sacramento Junior College, continuing his education under Cal-Vet and G.I. programs.
- Plaintiff worked continuously during defendant's schooling and for several years after he began practicing law, with her earnings treated as community income and used to supplement defendant’s veteran’s benefits for education and general community purposes.
- Defendant graduated from the University of San Francisco Law School with an LLB degree in June 1951, was admitted to the State Bar, and began his law practice in Grass Valley with minimal assets.
- By March 1, 1965, the community had accumulated net assets exceeding $200,000, and defendant's law practice was generating approximately $23,412 net per year.
- Plaintiff and defendant separated on December 26, 1964.
- Within a week of separation, defendant sold half of his law business to Brian Bishop for $3,126.93.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance in the trial court (court of first instance).
- Defendant filed a cross-complaint for divorce, alleging extreme cruelty, which he later dismissed.
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for divorce, including a cause of action for return of the law practice, which was apparently dismissed.
- After a trial, an interlocutory decree of divorce was granted to plaintiff by the trial court, which awarded her a divorce, custody of the children, and divided community property.
- Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Plaintiff appealed to the California Court of Appeal from portions of the interlocutory decree concerning community property division (specifically the valuation of the husband's education and law practice, and the Christmas tree farm) and from a minute order denying attorneys’ fees and costs on 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's professional education, funded in part by community moneys, constitute a divisible community asset in a divorce, and did the trial court properly value the husband's law practice as community property for division?
Opinions:
Majority - Bray, J.
No, a spouse's professional education, even when funded by community moneys, does not constitute a divisible community asset in a divorce because it is an intangible property right that cannot have a monetary value placed upon it for division between spouses. The court reasoned that while the 'right to practice' a profession is a property right, it does not fall within the definition of community property for division purposes, citing Franklin v. Franklin. The court further explained that the assets accumulated during the marriage, from which the plaintiff received a substantial award, were the results of the defendant's legal education, implying she had already realized value therefrom. No, the trial court did not properly value the husband's law practice as community property for division, as it failed to adequately consider all accounts receivable and other business in the office. The court clarified that while the right to practice law is not community property, the value of the practice at the time of community dissolution is community property, citing Brawman v. Brawman and Fritschi v. Teed. The trial court's valuation, based on depreciated book value and minimal goodwill, was found insufficient because it did not account for significant advances to clients ($11,494.27 vs. $1,444.33 considered) and the value of partly completed accounts. The court noted that defendant sold half his practice for a small sum and that the books were in a condition suggesting 'considerable covering up' of the financial state. Consequently, the court reversed the portion of the decree relating to the law practice's valuation, directing a re-evaluation to include all accounts receivable and existing business. The court affirmed the trial court's valuation of the Christmas tree farm, and its awards for alimony, child support, and denial of attorneys' fees and costs, finding no abuse of discretion in these aspects.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark in California community property law for clearly distinguishing between a professional education and a professional practice in divorce proceedings. It establishes that while the former, despite community investment, is not a divisible asset due to its intangible nature, the latter's economic potential is community property. The ruling provides important guidance for courts to ensure equitable division of professional practices, demanding thorough valuation including all present and future income potential derived from existing work. This decision impacts future cases by requiring meticulous accounting of professional assets and reinforcing the principle that community contributions to education yield indirect, rather than direct, divisible interests.
