• The Collaborative Process
    ▼
    • Overview
    • The Professional Team
    • FAQs
  • Find a Professional
    ▼
    • Divorce Professionals
    • Professional Resource Members
  • Divorce Options
    ▼
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • About Divorce Options
  • CDSOC Membership
    ▼
    • Member Benefits
    • Join
    • Member Resources
  • About Us
    ▼
    • About Us Overview
    • Our Mission
    • CDSOC Leadership
  • Events Calendar
  • Blogs
  • Contact
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

CDSOC

Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County

Connect With A Professional Today:
(949) 266-0660

  • The Collaborative Process
    • Overview
    • The Professional Team
    • FAQs
  • Find a Professional
    • Divorce Professionals
    • Professional Resource Members
  • Divorce Options
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • About Divorce Options
  • CDSOC Membership
    • Member Benefits
    • Join
    • Member Resources
  • About Us
    • About Us Overview
    • Our Mission
    • CDSOC Leadership
  • Events Calendar
  • Blogs
  • Contact

Separate Property

Community Property and Separate Property: What’s the Difference?

July 19, 2016 By CDSOC

 by Sara E. Milburn, Attorney at Law
Milburn Family Law, Laguna Beach, California

Many of my clients come into my office with the mistaken belief that after a long marriage, everything they own together is community property, and they are going to leave the marriage with one half of this property. Sometimes it is a shock for them to learn that is not necessarily the case.

Property issues in a divorce can be very complex. These are the basics to help you start working through your decision-making process.

Separate Property

In California, separate property is defined by Family Code 770. Separate property of a married person includes all of the following:

  1. All property owned by the person before the marriage,
  2. All gifts or inheritances received.
  3. The rents and profits the separate property earns.

Where this can become confusing is when the spouse who owns the separate property uses his time and talent (called “community effort”) to cause an increase to his or her own separate property. This must be more than a diminutive amount of time or effort. The court has wide discretion here. If the separate property was a stock account and the spouse was a day trader then there would be considerable community effort and the increase in value of the stock might be part community property. If it was a stock account that was managed by a financial advisor with only minimal decisions made by the spouse that would probably not give the community any interest in the increase in value of the stock account.

Community Property

Except as otherwise provided by California law, community property is considered all property acquired by a married person during the marriage. The exception is property specifically identified up front as separate property. Examples include property owned before marriage, gifts or inheritances as long as the source of funds to acquire the asset was community funds (i.e., earnings by either or both spouses during the marriage).

Co-Mingled Property

If separate property and community property in the way of money or investments are both deposited into the same account or asset owned jointly by the spouses, it may create issues of tracing. A forensic accountant with specific expertise will need to become involved.

Separate Property: Stock Accounts or Bank Accounts

If one spouse owns stock in a public company, or has a bank account that remains in his or her name as a separate account, and no community property earnings are placed into their separate account, then no matter how much the account balance grows through earnings or interest, the other spouse will have no interest in that investment.

Separate Home Before Marriage

With people getting married at older ages, and with numerous second (and third and more) marriages, this is a common situation. One of the spouses may own a home in their own name at the start of the marriage. They may never add their spouse’s name on the title to the home. In this situation, the home remains the separate property of the spouse who owned the home prior to the marriage, as his or her sole and separate property. This is true even if the couple lived in the home 30 years during their marriage.

The community might receive a portion of the equity if the mortgage was paid down during the marriage. There is a formula that is used (called “Moore-Marsden”)  but the house remains the separate property of the spouse who owned the home before marriage. If the spouse who owned the home prior to marriage does add his or her spouse’s name to the title on the property, the non-owner spouse would be entitled to half of the appreciation in value of the home that took place AFTER his or her name was added to the title.

Separate Home Purchased During Marriage

It is possible for one spouse to use their separate money to buy a house by themselves and for themselves alone during the marriage, and take title in their own name as their separate property. If there is a mortgage loan on the property-it may create a community interest in the separate property home due to the debt obligation.

Using Separate Property As a Down Payment on a Community Property Home Purchase

If an individual sells his or her separate property home purchased prior to the marriage, and uses the proceeds to help buy a new home with both spouses’ names on the title as the legal owners, the spouse who owned the separate property before marriage can still set aside the amount invested as a down payment as his or her separate property. There is an absolute right to reimbursement of separate property. See California Family Code 2640.

This is an example of how it might work. Wife “Melissa” owned a townhouse before her marriage to “Mario.” Melissa sells the townhome for $300,000. She and Mario then buy a new single family home for $700,000. She uses the $300,000 from the townhome as the down payment. Then Melissa and Mario take out a mortgage loan for the remaining $400.000. Ten years later, Melissa and Mario get divorced. They sell the house for $850,000. After paying off the loans and fees, Melissa and Mario have $620,000. Melissa receives her original $300,000 down payment off the top. Then Melissa and Mario split the remaining $320,000, receiving $160,000 each. Melissa receives $460,000, and Mario receives $160,000.

Separate Property: Business

When a business owned by one of the spouses grows in value during the marriage there are two conflicting cases in the law which define how to apportion the profits.

Under the Pereira case definition, “a fair return” on the separate property investment is given and the balance of the increased value is allocated to the Community Property because the time and talent of the spouse is Community Property.

Under the Van Camp case definition, the court would determine the reasonable value of the community’s service, and allocate that amount to the Community Property and allocate the balance to the Separate Property.

If this seems confusing or complicated, you are right. It can be very complicated. This is why it’s essential to rely on trustworthy advice from legal and financial advisors who have expertise in property division as the result of a divorce to help you understand your options and your rights under the law. It is worth investing in this guidance to help you avoid costly mistakes due to unfamiliarity with your best options.

Filed Under: Collaborative Divorce, Collaborative Practice, Divorce and Money, Divorce and The Law, Financial, Legal Tagged With: Assets, Community Property, Divorce and Stocks, Financial Settlement, Property Division, Property Settlement, Sara Milburn, Separate Property

When 50/50 Isn’t Always Equal in a California Divorce

June 6, 2016 By CDSOC

by Diana L. Martinez Collaborative Lawyer and Mediator, Law and Mediation Office of Diana L. Martinez

California is one of nine “community property” states as it relates to divorce. This means that assets and debts acquired and incurred during your marriage will be divided equally upon divorce. Exceptions exist for specific items received during marriage that are deemed “separate property” under the law. This includes gifts and inheritance.

This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in divorce law. Spouses often believe their divorce will be easy if they just split all of their property in half, or “50/50.” While strong emotions present a barrier to resolving issues during a divorce, not far behind is the misunderstandings by couples about the concept of what is “fair” when it comes to dividing up assets and liabilities.

From extensive experience as a mediator, consultant, and Collaborative Divorce lawyer, I am a strong advocate for giving spouses a greater voice in the outcome of their divorce. I am also a strong proponent of ensuring divorcing spouses have as much information as possible to make the best decisions moving forward.

Although the courts are required to enforce the laws, spouses in a divorce, with few exceptions (typically related to minor children) are not limited by the law; they can create their own, unique, agreements, based on their goals and values. Laws controlling the division of assets and debts, the amount you receive or pay in support, and the amount of time granted with your children exist to guide you IF you and your spouse are not able to resolve these items together. If you can’t resolve your differences, a judge will make the decisions for you. He or she is required to enforce the law, regardless of your personal goals and values.

You and your spouse may have some understanding of the law. But in negotiating your agreement, you may be better served by accepting less than the law allows in return for a greater benefit elsewhere. The benefit could be a better co-parenting relationship, or the opportunity to reduce or eliminate spousal support. It may even be the creation of balance where the laws aren’t able to provide it.

Annette and John Peterson provide a case study worth discussing as an example. The Petersons were able to resolve all disputes in their divorce except one: Annette’s pension benefits of approximately $100,000. This roadblock stalled the Petersons’ divorce for six years, from February 2010 until the California Supreme Court rendered its decision in January 2016.

In retrospect, after nearly six years of legal fees, lost time from work, and stress, Annette and John might have preferred finding a compromise outside of the contested court process. State laws governing pensions and federal laws governing Social Security created the sense of imbalance that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson fought so hard to correct, as each, individually, deemed most “fair”.

In California, pension benefits are community property when earned during marriage. Pension benefits are a form of deferred compensation for services rendered. Non-financial contributions to pension benefits, or “service credits,” are also considered “a form of deferred compensation for services rendered” and, therefore, community property.

But Social Security benefits are separate property under federal law. Federal law preempts state law. Social Security is not transferable, nor can it be assigned by the wage earner. There are, however, derivative rights upon divorce if:

  • you and your spouse are entitled to receive Social Security;
  • your marriage lasted 10 years or longer;
  • the ex-spouse did not remarry;
  • the ex-spouse is age 62 or older; and
  • the benefit the ex-spouse is entitled to received based on his/her own work is less than the benefit he or she would receive based on his/her former spouse’s work.

If each requirement is met, an ex-spouse could elect to receive either all of his/her own Social Security, or one-half of his/her former spouse’s Social Security, but not both.

As an employee of the County of Los Angeles, Annette did not contribute to Social Security. Instead, the County contributed to a defined pension plan for Annette through the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA). As an attorney in private practice, John contributed to Social Security through mandatory payroll deductions.

Annette’s LACERA benefits totaled between $200,000 and $216,000. Based on Social Security calculations, John’s Social Security benefits totaled $228,000. Annette attempted to argue that the laws governing LACERA pensions and the laws governing Social Security created unequal benefits. Annette and John would split her LACERA benefits in their divorce (approximately $100,000 to each). But John would keep all of his Social Security benefits.

The trial court ruled in John’s favor, creating an actual 150% windfall for John ($328,000 from 50% of Annette’s LACERA and 100% of his Social Security). Annette asked the California Supreme Court to correct this unfair situation, suggesting the court give John less than half of her LACERA pension benefits.

The Supreme Court let the trial court’s ruling stand, citing the requirement under California law that community assets be divided equally in a divorce. Since Social Security is not a “community asset,” the court correctly divided the community assets and could not deviate from that equal division, even when it creates an unequal division overall.

But the Supreme Court pointed out that it was completely within Annette and John’s power to create their own, more equal solution, even though the court under the law could not.

So let’s go back to Annette and John’s original circumstances. What was the value to John if he had agreed to give Annette all of her LACERA benefits, instead of insist on following the state law giving him a far greater share? What would have been the value to Annette to propose an alternate payout to John to resolve this issue?

As of 2010 in California, the average cost of a divorce where the parties were represented by lawyers was approximately $50,000 each. This amount is on the low end for a contested divorce in Orange County, and it does not include the legal fees for an appeal. Over the period of six years, based on 2010 estimates, Annette and John would have spent more than $100,000 each. Resolving your divorce early and collaboratively can save on legal fees, lost work time, and other intangible and emotional costs.

Managing emotional trauma and stress for yourself and your family offers priceless benefits, far beyond feeling a sense of entitlement or unfairness. Attorneys frequently fail to focus on these practical impacts because they are hired as legal advisors and guides, not as therapists. Attorneys are not equipped to help people through their fears; they are not trained mental health professionals.

Alternative (also known as “consensual”) dispute resolution models often incorporate legal and non-legal professionals to help educate and guide couples through unexpected emotional landmines, often resulting in less, or better managed, conflict, and better informed and well reasoned results.

For example, the Collaborative Divorce model incorporates guidance from a “divorce coach” to help manage the emotions of divorcing spouses, often saving the spouses tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as years of stress embroiled in a contested divorce, and the subsequent modifications to orders after trial. The outcomes tend to be far more satisfying to both spouses, and result in fewer or no additional hearings after judgment to modify those orders.

Making decisions based on accurate legal and financial information, as well as balancing the practical impact on your family and finances often results in far greater and lasting benefit for you and your family. Sometimes, there is too high a price for the short-term gain of getting everything you can under the law.

Filed Under: Child Support, Collaborative Practice, Divorce and Emotions, Divorce and Money, Financial, Spousal Support Tagged With: Assets, CDSOC, Community Property, Diana Martinez, Divorce and Real Estate, Divorce and Retirement, Divorce and Trauma, Employee Benefits, Equal Division, Financial Settlement, Legal Fees, Orange County, Property Settlement, Retirement Benefits, Separate Property, Social Security

Primary Sidebar

Blog Categories

Categories

  • Awards and Honors
  • Blog
  • Child Custody
  • Child Specialist
  • Child Support
  • Children's Mental Health
  • Co-Parenting
  • Coaching
  • Collaborative Divorce
  • Collaborative Practice
  • COVID-19
  • Creative Divorce Solutions
  • Delayed Divorce
  • Divorce and Emotions
  • Divorce and Military
  • Divorce and Money
  • Divorce and The Law
  • Divorce Horror Stories
  • Divorce Options
  • Events and Training
  • Family Issues
  • Financial
  • General Divorce
  • Legal
  • Mediation
  • Mental Health
  • Self Help Divorce
  • Self-Representation
  • Spousal Support
  • Tips & Resources

Footer

CDSOC

Copyright © 2023 | All Rights Reserved | Website Design by The Crouch Group | Log in