Thanks; I understand the right to reimbursement but what of the situation
where the spouse throws money into the proverbial money pit? If there's an
increase in value then the right to reimbursement is clear. In the absence
of such an increase, can it be avoided?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Lindsey Green wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> Jay-
>
> See Family Code Section 2640- Reimbursement for separate property
> contributions to the acquisition of the community property estate traceable
> to contributions from a separate source, unless there is a written waiver.
> Contributions include downpayments, payments for improvements and to reduce
> principle of loan for purchase or improvement. Do not include payments for
> interest, maintenance, insurance or taxation.
>
> See also Marriage of Weaver (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 858- Appellate court
> affirmed trial court's order of reimbursement by community to husband under
> Family Code Section 2640 as husband paid $10,600 of his separate property
> funds as a downpayment to the purchase of the family residence of husband
> and wife acquired in joint tenancy as unmarried individuals 2 days prior to
> marriage. Husband and wife resided in family residence for 13 years and
> during marriage made improvements and re-financed during marriage. The
> following is quoted from the Weaver decision at pp. 862-863: "Husband and
> wife married on September 28, 1985. After 14 years of marriage, husband and
> wife separated on December 9, 1999. On January 19, 2000, wife petitioned
> for marital dissolution. The trial court entered judgment of marital
> dissolution on January 6, 2004.
>
> In September 1985, shortly before husband and wife married, they
> purchased a home on Scandia Drive, in Running Springs. Husband and wife
> held title to the property in joint tenancy, as unmarried individuals.
> Husband supplied from his separate property $17,478.50 for the $10,600
> downpayment and additional closing costs. Husband and wife funded the
> remainder of the $85,000 home purchase through a mortgage ($76,189). The
> deed for the Scandia residence was recorded on September 26, 1985, two days
> before husband and wifes marriage.
>
> In November 1986, husband and wife moved into the Scandia
> residence and began remodeling it. They made about $33,000 in special
> improvements, and obtained a second mortgage of $32,500 on the Scandia
> residence in August 1988. The loan was used to pay for the special
> improvements, which included adding a garage, bedroom, and fireplace.
>
> When husband and wife refinanced their home in November 1992, they
> borrowed $124,000 against their home. The mortgage at the time of the
> dissolution trial was $170,750. Husband and wife resided at the Scandia
> residence until they separated.
>
> At the time of husband and wifes marriage, they were both
> employed at General Dynamics. Wife continued working there for about a
> year, until 1987, and then quit. In 1997, she worked for a short time at
> Wal-Mart. Wife gave husband her paychecks and husband handled all the
> finances. Husband continued working at General Dynamics during the marriage
> for about three and a half years, until he retired in March 1989.
>
> Following a trial on the division of property, the trial court
> awarded husband a credit for the $10,600 downpayment on the Scandia
> residence as a section 2640 reimbursement. The trial court stated in its
> written findings and orders the following: The court finds this to be
> community property and awards it to husband, subject to the encumbrance
> thereon. The court finds the gross value of the property to be $215,000
> with a balance owing of $107,770. However, husband is entitled to 2640
> reimbursement for his separate property down payment in the amount of
> $10,600 which is calculated by taking the purchase price of $85,000 and
> subtracting the amount of the loan of $73,400. (Exhibit A) He is not
> entitled to credit for payment of closing costs. The court declines to use
> wifes analysis. As such, the net community interest is found to be
> $96,630. [] The evidence is insufficient to trace the $37,000 in
> improvements to husbands separate property rather than the monies received
> from the refinance. As such, his request for reimbursement is denied.
>
>
> Lindsey B. Green, Esq.
> Gumm & Green, LLP, Attorneys at Law
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 111
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> Phone: 818 707 4233
> Fax: 818 707 4262
>
e-mail-Lindsey@gummandgreen.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jay Fleischman
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 8:01 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Family law issue ...
>
>
>
> Anyone know if one spouse has a right to reimbursement for separate
> property contributions to a community asset if the contributions
> didn't preserve or create value in the asset?
>
> I'm deal with a consumer bankruptcy matter involving a second marriage
> wherein the wife spent significant amounts of separate property funds
> remodeling and tricking out a vacation cabin that never had value in
> excess of the existing mortgages. That's a long-winded way of saying
> that the debtor-husband hasn't been financially enriched by her
> expenditures.
>
> A declaratory relief action is contemplated in the bankruptcy court
> seeking to find the debt of the husband to the wife, though mentioned
> in the dissolution judgment, isn't a debt incurred in the dissolution
> for purposes of 523(a)(15).
>
> Any insights? Case law or Code sections would be really appreciated.
> It's not a local case, so we can leave the particular thought
> processes of individual judges out of the picture.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> I help people get smart solutions to their bill problems.
>
>
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>
> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>
> T: 626-808-4343 x704
> E:
jay@sflawca.com
>
> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
>
>
Thanks; I understand the right to reimbursement but what of the situation where the spouse throws money into the proverbial money pit? If there's an increase in value then the right to reimbursement is clear. In the absence of such an increase, can it be avoided?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Lindsey Green <
lindsey@gummandgreen.com> wrote:
Jay-
SeeFamily Code Section 2640- Reimbursement
for separate property contributions to the acquisition of the community property
estate traceable to contributions from a separate source, unless there is awritten waiver. Contributions include downpayments, payments for
improvements and to reduce principle of loan for purchase or improvement.Do not include payments for interest, maintenance, insurance or taxation.
See also Marriage of Weaver (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 858- Appellate court affirmed trial court's order of reimbursement by
community to husband under Family Code Section 2640as husbandpaid
$10,600 of his separate property fundsas adownpayment to
thepurchase of the family residence of husband and wife acquired in joint
tenancy as unmarried individuals 2 days prior to marriage. Husband and
wife resided in family residence for 13 years and during marriage made
improvements and re-financed during marriage.The following is quotedfrom the Weaver decision at pp. 862-863: "Husband and wife married on September 28, 1985. After 14
years of marriage, husband and wife separated on December 9, 1999. On January
19, 2000, wife petitioned for marital dissolution. The trial court enteredjudgment of marital dissolution on January 6, 2004.
In September 1985, shortly
before husband and wife married, they purchased a home on Scandia Drive, inRunning Springs. Husband and wife held title to the property in joint tenancy,
as unmarried individuals. Husband supplied from his separate property $17,478.50
for the $10,600 downpayment and additional closing costs. Husband and wifefunded the remainder of the $85,000 home purchase through a mortgage ($76,189).
The deed for the Scandia residence was recorded on September 26, 1985, two days
before husband and wifes marriage.
In November 1986, husband and
wife moved into the Scandia residence and began remodeling it. They made about
$33,000 in special improvements, and obtained a second mortgage of $32,500 on
the Scandia residence in August 1988. The loan was used to pay for the special
improvements, which included adding a garage, bedroom, and fireplace.
When husband and wife
refinanced their home in November 1992, they borrowed $124,000 against their
home. The mortgage at the time of the dissolution trial was $170,750. Husband
and wife resided at the Scandia residence until they separated.
At the time of husband and
wifes marriage, they were both employed at General Dynamics. Wife continued
working there for about a year, until 1987, and then quit. In 1997, she worked
for a short time at Wal-Mart. Wife gave husband her paychecks and husband
handled all the finances. Husband continued working at General Dynamics during
the marriage for about three and a half years, until he retired in March
1989.
Following a trial on the
division of property, the trial court awarded husband a credit for the $10,600
downpayment on the Scandia residence as a section 2640 reimbursement. The trial
court stated in its written findings and orders the following: The court finds
this to be community property and awards it to husband, subject to the
encumbrance thereon. The court finds the gross value of the property to be$215,000 with a balance owing of $107,770. However, husband is entitled to 2640
reimbursement for his separate property down payment in the amount of $10,600
which is calculated by taking the purchase price of $85,000 and subtracting the
amount of the loan of $73,400. (Exhibit A) He is not entitled to credit forpayment of closing costs. The court declines to use wifes analysis. As such,
the net community interest is found to be $96,630. [] The evidence is
insufficient to trace the $37,000 in improvements to husbands separate property
rather than the monies received from the refinance. As such, his request for
reimbursement is denied.
Lindsey B. Green, Esq.
Gumm & Green, LLP, Attorneys at
Law
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 111
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Phone: 818 707 4233
Fax: 818 707 4262
e-mail-Lindsey@gummandgreen.com
----- Original Message -----
From:
Jay
Fleischman
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:01
AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Family law issue ...
Anyone know if one spouse has a right to reimbursement for
separateproperty contributions to a community asset if the
contributionsdidn't preserve or create value in the asset?I'm deal
with a consumer bankruptcy matter involving a second marriagewherein the
wife spent significant amounts of separate property fundsremodeling and
tricking out a vacation cabin that never had value inexcess of the
existing mortgages. That's a long-winded way of sayingthat the
debtor-husband hasn't been financially enriched by
herexpenditures.A declaratory relief action is contemplated in the
bankruptcy courtseeking to find the debt of the husband to the wife, though mentionedin the dissolution judgment, isn't a debt incurred in the
dissolutionfor purposes of 523(a)(15).Any insights? Case law or
Code sections would be really appreciated.It's not a local case, so we can
leave the particular thoughtprocesses of individual judges out of the picture.Thanks.-------------Jay S. Fleischman,
Esq.Shaev & Fleischman, LLPI help people get smart solutions
to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com556
S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152Pasadena CA 91105-2656T:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.