Williams v. Williams
92 Cal. Rptr. 385, 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1020, 14 Cal. App. 3d 560 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A husband, as manager of community property, has a fiduciary-like duty to account for significant community funds that were intact immediately prior to the filing of a divorce action and must reimburse the wife for her share of any such property not shown to have been used for proper community purposes.
Facts:
- Plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married on May 8, 1955, and after almost 13 years, their marriage deteriorated to the point of divorce.
- The husband withdrew $39,251.50 from a savings and loan account and received $73,237.76 from the dissolution of a stock account, totaling $110,489.26.
- An accountant appointed by the court was able to trace $22,126 of the $110,489.26 as having been spent by the husband on mortgage payments, taxes, and other expenses on real property.
- The accountant found that $39,000 was paid by the husband to five persons, which the husband claimed were repayments for loans, but the existence or community nature of these debts was not verified.
- The accountant was unable to determine what happened to the remaining $49,363.26 of the funds.
- The husband testified that he spent the $49,363.26 in the year preceding trial for ordinary living expenses and had no money left.
- Two individuals, Candler and Ratner, received money from the husband, purportedly as repayment of loans.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife brought a divorce action against the husband on April 19, 1968, which was shortly thereafter dismissed.
- The wife brought the present action for divorce on May 27, 1968, in the superior court (trial court).
- The husband cross-complained for a divorce.
- The trial court granted a divorce to both parties.
- The trial court awarded the wife alimony of $1.00 per year.
- The trial court found one parcel of real property to be the husband's separate property and five other parcels to be community property, awarding the wife an undivided one-half interest in each.
- The trial court appointed an accountant on July 17, 1968, to audit the parties' financial records.
- The trial court restrained the husband from selling, transferring, or encumbering community property except in the ordinary course of business or for necessities.
- The trial court failed to make any findings regarding the disposition of $110,489.26 in funds that were in the husband's possession prior to the divorce filing.
- The trial court rendered judgment decreeing the wife take nothing by reason of her complaint against defendants Candler and Ratner.
- The wife appealed to the California Court of Appeal from the portions of the judgment failing to account for or distribute community monies and assets in the husband's possession, and from the judgment regarding Candler and Ratner.
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 husband have a duty to account for community property funds that were in his possession immediately prior to divorce proceedings, and if not shown to have been used for community purposes, must he reimburse the wife for her share?
Opinions:
Majority - Gustafson, J.
Yes, a husband does have a duty to account for community property funds that were intact immediately prior to divorce proceedings, and must reimburse the wife for her share of any such property not shown to have been used for proper community purposes. The trial court erred by failing to make findings on the disposition of the $110,489.26, which was a material issue clearly raised by the pleadings and evidence, necessitating a reversal and remand for further proceedings. While a husband's duty is not as strict as a trustee's or one requiring meticulous bookkeeping throughout a marriage, he cannot obtain an "unfair advantage" over his wife. When a substantial sum of community property is intact immediately before a divorce action is filed, the husband must account for its disposition. If he cannot show it was used for community purposes, he must reimburse the wife for her share. The court affirmed the judgment regarding defendants Candler and Ratner because the wife's complaint against them only sought an injunction, not a money judgment, and there was no evidence they still possessed the funds.
Concurring - Thompson, J.
Yes, a husband has a duty to account for community property funds that were intact immediately prior to divorce proceedings, and if not shown to have been used for community purposes, must reimburse the wife for her share. While concurring with the majority's result, this opinion posits that the core issue is the burden of proof and producing evidence. Once the wife establishes the existence of community assets, shows they are missing, and provides evidence inferring wrongful disposition by the husband, she has met her burden of proof. The burden then shifts to the husband to produce evidence demonstrating that his dispositions of community property were proper, due to his superior access to these facts as the manager and controller of community property. This approach aligns with prior Supreme Court decisions that place the burden of explanation on the party with the most accessible information.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the extent of a managing spouse's fiduciary-like duties regarding community property during the dissolution of a marriage. It establishes a heightened standard of accountability for significant community funds that are intact immediately prior to divorce proceedings, requiring the managing spouse to justify their disposition. This ruling reinforces the principle that a spouse cannot gain an unfair advantage through their control of community assets and provides crucial protection for the non-managing spouse's right to an equal division of property. The emphasis on the trial court's duty to make specific findings on such dispositions is vital for ensuring equitable outcomes in divorce cases where assets may have been dissipated or hidden.
