Kerrigan v. Kerrigan

Filed 1/23/07  Kerrigan v. Kerrigan CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Mitchell  L. Beckloff, Commissioner.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

            Thomas S. Kerrigan, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

            Law Offices of John A. Tkach and John A. Tkach for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

            This action arises out of the dissolution of a long-term marriage.  Appellant Thomas Sherman Kerrigan (husband) challenges certain findings of the trial court, including the characterization of various retirement and savings accounts as community property and the award of permanent spousal support to respondent Victoria E. Kerrigan (wife).  We find that substantial evidence does not support the characterization of husband's savings account as community property and that he should not be ordered to reimburse wife half of this account.  In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            The parties married on December 31, 1980.  Twenty-four years later on January 5, 2004, wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage following the parties' separation a year earlier on December 3, 2003.  Husband was 64 years old and wife 58.  They have three adult children.  Husband has three other adult children from a prior marriage.  Husband worked as an attorney in private practice for more than 20 years, then worked for the California Labor Commission and was retired by the time of these proceedings.  He suffers from Parkinson's Disease.  In 2004, he underwent deep brain stimulation surgery.  According to his physician, this surgery provided him with an additional four or five years of functioning.  Wife, who last worked full time in the early 1970's as an actress, was primarily unemployed during the marriage.

            The case was tried by the court over six days.  In addition to the testimony of both parties, the court heard testimony from husband's physician, Dr. Clark Espy; husband's former law partner, Fred DiBernardo; and the office manager of husband's former law firm, Georgina Lau.

            Following trial, the court issued a 25-page written statement of decision filed on December 2, 2005.  The court noted that â€