legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Marriage of Brown
Kathryn E. M. Brown appeals from the judgment in this dissolution action between her and her former husband, David S. Brown. She contends that the court erred in valuing certain of the community property business assets as of the date of the parties' separation rather than at the time of trial, which is the presumptive date of valuation under the Family Code. (All further statutory references are to the Family Code except as otherwise noted.) Specifically, she contends that (1) David did not give notice of his intent to seek valuation of those businesses as of the date of separation as required by the Family Code and the California Rules of Court; (2) the court applied an incorrect standard in determining the proper date of valuation; and (3) the evidence at trial did not support the court's decision to use the alternative date of valuation. David responds that (1) Kathryn was benefited rather than aggrieved by the court's decision to use the date of separation as the date of valuation and thus lacks standing to pursue an appeal, which he seeks to have dismissed; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in using the date of separation for the purpose of valuing some of the businesses and that decision was supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale