Debts in a California Divorce

My spouse ran up huge credit debt during the marriage. In dividing assets and debts as they settlement agreement who should consequence these debts?

In Oregon, Family Code section 910 caters to that the community is liable for all debts incurred near marriage and prior inside separation. It doesn't matter or perhaps a debt was incurred by one spouse for there own benefit or for your loved ones. It also doesn't ingredient whose name appears at the bill or the invite statements. If it was incurred contained in the marriage and prior to separation it can community property debt and both spouses are just liable. This means that whenever the parties are negotiating a settlement and tallying the relationships balance sheet such debts ought to be divided equally. A better option is almost certainly that one spouse agrees be rewarded the joint debts to acquire a greater share of such community property. The spouse paying off the debts can at any rate make sure that joint payments are made because as long due to the fact debts are jointly due both spouses are financially responsible to creditors.

What if a husband and wife pays off one celebrations pre-marriage debts?

Consider this example. Bob and Jackie get spliced. Bob has huge credit debt that he incurred in advance. Bob and Jackie desire to improve their credit rating with the intention to buy a house. They agree be rewarded Bob's debts. However, when are debt free, Harry files for dissolution. So, Bob and Jackie have tried community property earnings be rewarded Bob's separate property finance. California case law replies the community is entitled a re-imbursement for how much it paid to emit one parties separate house loan debts. 1 So throughout your above example, the community is qualified to apply a reimbursement for payment amount Bob's debts.

What if one cocktail party uses their separate property be rewarded community property debts?

In this example after they get married life Bob and Jackie preserve on vacation and rack stride huge debts. Jackie dips into the dog's brokerage account which she built up prior to an marriage to pay from the vacation debts. In this situation, Jackie has used her separate property be rewarded community debts. California case law replies a spouse who, during marriage could separation, uses separate property to reach a community debt is presumed to make a gift to the neighborhood library. 2 So in if you example, Jackie is not qualified to apply a re-imbursement for paying the community vacation debts.

There can offer important exception to his rule. Family Code section 2640 provide you with that where one party uses associated property for the acquisition of community property, the paying spouse comes with a statutory tracing right of reimbursement if they have not waived the right in writing. Contributions to the acquisition of property include downpayments, payments for improvements, and payments that reduce the principal of a loan meant to finance the purchase very well as improvement of property. They do not include payments of interest in a loan to gift property, or payments around maintenance, insurance, or taxation of the home. So in the exceeding example, if Jackie had being used her separate property brokerage account to pay off the principal on a joint mortgage or for a downpayment she would be eligible for a a reimbursement of this type of amount.

After separation one spouse uses their very own property earnings or property to pay off community debts.

In this situation after Bob and Jackie detached, Jackie continues to drive the BMW that was purchased with a loan during the marriage. Bob continues thinking about the loan payments on the car. Can Bob claim a reimbursement credit for all the payments he makes in the date of separation throughout date of trial?

California case law has developed the rule of thumb that a spouse who actually, after separation, uses earnings as well as other separate property to invest in pre-existing community obligations ought to be reimbursed out of modern world property upon dissolution. 3 These are traditionally called "Epstein credits" after a California Supreme Court case that established the tip.

Under this general Frank could, in theory, claim credits for all the payments he makes by the car loan after separate. But what if Bob was driving the vehicle and making the automobile insurance. Wouldn't it be unfair for Bob all you need is use of the car and moreover claim reimbursement credits? That's what the Court said up and down Epstein. It laid out an exception to the rule of thumb where the paying spouse also possesses the asset and the "amount a payment was not substantially at over the value of the use. " So this signifies that Bob could not claim credits throughout the monthly payments if he drives the motor car but probably could documents a credit if he paid of each entire loan.

There are two other important exceptions for those Epstein general rule that a spouse who uses countless earnings or property to pay off pre-existing community obligations is entitled to a reimbursement: (a) where it comes with an agreement between the parties that the payments cannot reimbursed, and (b) where the payments were intended like a gift or as young adults or spousal support.

After separation one wife uses community property funds to pay of their living counterbalances. What are the benefits?

In this example, Bob and Jackie supply and Bob agrees to pay $1000 per month with regard to your support and "whatever else you'll need out savings. " Jackie takes out $1, 000 community property from the joint bank account to pay for various living expenses. California case law provides how the community is entitled so as to re-imbursement where one his conversation uses community property to compensate separate obligations after separation just as much as exceed a reasonable amount for child and spousal sponsor. 4 A reasonable amount is most likely the amount of guideline support that Court would order in any application for temporary daughter or son and spousal support. If that amount were $1, 500, equipped above example, Jackie would have to reimburse the community $500 ($2, 000 - $1, 500 she received). Equipped division of community property she would receive $250 less on the inside community property. Since about it rule flows from Epstein, these individuals can waive the rule in writing and agree that virtually all payments shall not reduce the community estate.

After separation one spouse stays in the family home while the other spouse pays the loan. What are the benefits?

It's often the case that whenever separation one spouse moves in the family home ("the out-spouse") ought to other spouse stays in your home with the children ("the in-spouse"). A particular out-spouse, usually the man, may offer to maintain the status quo by continuing to spend the money for mortgage payments and other payments which includes property taxes to develop the property. In such a situation the in-spouse ought to be warned that there might be serious consequences of such an arrangement at the time of trial.

We've already ever known one consequence. The out-spouse paying bank loan payments may be entitled to Epstein credits because they are paying separate property earnings over to a community property debt unless there an agreement to renounce such reimbursements or such payments were a kind of child or spousal trigger.

The other major consequence is if the reasonable rental the importance of the family home far exceeds the mortgage payments, the in-spouse may be needed to re-imburse the community for that difference in these payments concerning the date of separation in which date of trial. These are called Watt's charges after a case that established over a rule. 5. The tip is that where one spouse gets the exclusive use of community assets throughout the date of separation and trial, that spouse may be needed to compensate the community longer reasonable value of make use of. Consider this example. Bob and Jackie separate. Jackie and the kids stay in the family home after separation. Bob agrees that he'll continue to support the family and afford the mortgage and other expenditures. The mortgage payments are $1, 500 per 30 days. If Jackie had to address the fair market rent for that property she'd pay $2, 500 per month. Bob pays the mortgage for 10 months during the date of separation on the web date of trial. Bob could argue that he should be re-imbursed Watt's prices of interest of $10, 000 ($2, 500 - $1, 500 x 10). In a division of community property he'd be entitled to an extra $5, 000. Bob could argue that he needs to be entitled to Epstein credits with a further $15, 000 ($1, 500 x 10) which would increase his share concerned community property by $7, 500.

This could mean that Jackie's entitlement to community property could be reduced by $25, 000 when she believed that Bob was supporting her and maintaining the status quo? Isn't this grossly unfair? 7. You'd think so but that didn't stop the Court of each one Appeal awarding Epstein credit and Watts charges simply by similar circumstances in About re Marriage of Jeffries (1991) 228 California. App. 3d 548. But delay. Isn't there an exception towards the rule where payments are made "in lieu of spousal permits? " The answer is yes "but" now that is clearly spelled out prior to the Court will treat these kinds of payments as support. In regards to a Jeffries, there was the Order of the Court even so the payments were "in lieu of everyone spousal support. " But it, the Order also asserted the Court retained jurisdiction to characterize these payments and discover whether the Husband should be entitled to reimbursements.

In another case the court of Appeal reached exactly the opposite conclusion to Jeffries. 6. In this case the husband also paid home loan pursuant to a temporary court ruling "in lieu of spousal support" from trial claimed Epstein school loans and Watts charges. The court of Appeal held that public policy as well as language of the Court order required that the Court of law deny the husband's reports for Epstein credits. The court then decided that and the wife was, in impact, paying the mortgage she do not have to pay any Watt's charges because the monthly mortgage payments were just like the fair market rental value of the home.

The only solution for a mess is for these with and their attorneys to agree first the proceedings whether then the spouses payment of community debts (such when mortgage) and one spouse living in the family residence should be treated as spousal support it doesn't generate Epstein credits and also Watt's charges. If it's treated and in some cases spousal support any angle or Order should normally include explicit language that mortgage and many more payments by the out-spouse and exclusive residence by the in-spouse in the family home "shall be treated" as spousal and your kids and the paying spouse shall not have any reimbursements such as Watt's, Epstein, Jeffries credits and fees.

Who is responsible for debts?

Family Code 2623 (a) provides that debts incurred after separation but before the judgment of dissolution are revealed the spouse who incurred the debts if they are for "non-necessaries of life" on your spouse or the parts children. If they are incurred longer "necessaries of life" on your spouse or the small children, then they will revealed either spouse according to each parties needs and abilities of forking over when the debts originated incurred, unless there's a written agreement or order during support.

Generally, debts incurred during the marriage shall be divided between your parties. However, Family Code 2625 gives the court the opportunity to assign a debt incurred the actual marriage to one spouse in the event it "was not incurred for the benefit of he community. " 8 Any more, Family Code 2602 provides that the court may also ruling an offset against any party's community share if it finds that amounts were deliberately misappropriated by the wrongdoing spouse.

Footnotes:

1. Marriage of Walter (1976) 57 Cal. App. 3d 997.

2. See v. See (1966) 64 Cal. App. 2d 778. In regards to a Re Marriage of Nicholson (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4 289, the court of Appeal held where Husband had used $30, 000 that his mother had given him as a gift (i. e. separate property ) to pay off the credit card ( community property debts) to allow them to could qualify for a financial loan to buy a house, he was not entitled to a re-imbursement.

3. In regards to a re Marriage of Epstein (1979) twenty-four Cal. 3d 76. As well as in Re Marriage of Tucker (1983) 141 Cal. App. 3d 128.

4. Epstein, above; In re Marriage Stalworth (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 742.

5. In regards to a re Marriage of Watts (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 366.

6. In regards to a Re Marriage of Johnson (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 885.

7. This is the conclusion of one Breakup Commissioner: "It is fundamentally unfair for one spouse to move through to allow a post-separation compensation arrangement to stabilize on one set of financial assumptions and then, without warning to the choice spouse, introduce for the first time at trial a concept as pernicious due to Watts credit claim to setup an entirely different set of financial assumptions. " Commissioner Richard Curtis (2003)

8. Marriage granted Cairo (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1255. Gambling debts incurred on credit cards during marriage assigned in order to Husband.

© 2007 Warren R. Shiell. All rights set aside. The information contained in this site is an "Advertisement. " Which is for informational purposes only and shall not constitute legal advice. Nothing in this Website will be deemed to create a far more Attorney-Client relationship. An Attorney-Client relationship shall just be created when this office agrees and represents a Client and complaintant signs a written retainer accord.

.