Petition for Divorce - California Marital Property - Past Paper, Exams of Property Law

Download Petition for Divorce - California Marital Property - Past Paper and more Exams Property Law in PDF only on Docsity! LAW 281.2: California Marital Property Fall 2010 1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COURSE EXAMINATION SCHOOL OF LAW Fall 2010 LAW 281.2: California Marital Property INSTRUCTOR: HERMA HILL KAY TIME ALLOWED: 2½ HOURS OPEN BOOK EXAMINATION NUMBERS: Please be sure to put your correct Fall exam number on each page of the exam (if typed) or on each blue book. COMPLETION: DO NOT CONTINUE WRITING AFTER TIME HAS BEEN CALLED. Please do NOT leave your bluebook or typed answers on the desk. Exams MUST be turned in to the person in charge. If you finish early, you must turn your exam in to the Examination Headquarters in Room 111 Boalt Hall. There are no space limits. QUESTION I. 50% CREDIT In In re Marriage of Guo, 186 Cal.App. 4th 1491, 112 Cal.Rptr. 3rd 906 (2010) [this opinion was distributed to you via bSpace], Sun was married to another woman at the time he and Guo were married in Las Vegas on February 14, 2001. Guo knew that Sun had been married previously, but believed in good faith (based on Sun’s representations that he and his first wife were divorced) that their marriage was valid. In fact, Sun’s divorce from his first wife was not entered until August 21, 2001. Guo filed a petition for divorce from Sun on August 24, 2007. When she discovered that their marriage was bigamous, and therefore illegal and void, she amended her petition on January 7, 2008, to seek a judgment nullifying the marriage. After the judgment of nullity was entered on August 15, 2008, Sun sought to be declared a putative spouse. The trial court denied this LAW 281.2: California Marital Property Fall 2010 2 request, and its order was affirmed on appeal in an opinion in which the Court of Appeal “respectfully disagree[d] with the holding in In re Marriage of Tejeda, 179 Cal.App.4th 973, 102 Cal.Rptr. 3rd 361 (2009)”, which had come to the opposite result in a case also featuring a bigamous marriage [this opinion is in your 2010-2011 Update.] In footnote 5 of its opinion, the Guo court stated that “[w]e do not express an opinion about whether Sun could have asserted a claim for quasi- marital property if Guo successfully claimed to be a putative spouse.” ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS FULLY: (1) Assume that both Guo and Sun worked and earned income after the date of their Las Vegas marriage ceremony on February 14, 2001. Assume further that in the nullity proceeding Guo successfully claimed to be a putative spouse, and sought an award from the trial court of a share of the “quasi- marital property” equal to the share of community property or quasi- community property she would have received if the marriage had been valid. Assume that Sun also claimed to be a putative spouse. Finally, assume that the property produced during the period the parties lived together is composed of the following assets: (a) A house acquired by Guo in her name alone for $100,000 in June 2001, using a $20,000 inheritance from her mother received in April, 2001, and a loan extended to her by a bank in her name alone for $80,000. All of the mortgage payments have been made by Guo from her employment income. The house is currently worth $200,000. (b) An investment business operated by Sun as a sole proprietor beginning in January 2000. The business, which had been appraised at $250,000 in March 2001, lost a large part of its value in 2007, but on August 1, 2008, was appraised at $350,000. Sun has continued to operate the business. (c) A condominium in Pacific Palisades, California, acquired by Sun in 1996 in his own name for $100,000 using $20,000 from his savings account opened in 1995 in the names of Sun and his first wife (let’s call her “Marianna”) and an $80,000 loan in his own name which was fully paid off using income from his employment in Los Angeles as a stock broker. In July LAW 281.2: California Marital Property Fall 2010 5 Dorothy graduated from Berkeley Law in 2013, took the California Bar Examination that fall, and accepted a one year clerkship with a Judge on the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which pays $55,000 per year. In 2014, she took a two year public interest fellowship in San Francisco, which pays $42,000 per year. Peter graduated from Stanford Medical School in 2014, took his Medical Boards, and accepted a one year internship at Mt. Zion hospital in San Francisco, which pays $35,000 per year. Upon completion of his internship, he passed his Flex Exam. He then took a two year residency at U.C.S.F. hospital, which pays $40,000 per year. He planned to specialize in plastic surgery. In 2016, Dorothy joined a San Francisco public interest law firm. Her job, as a member of the class action litigation team, pays $43,000 per year. In 2017, Peter accepted a position at Kaiser Hospital in San Francisco, a job that is considered to be attractive because it offers regular hours (no nights “on call”) and 6 weeks vacation each year. The position pays $250,000 per year, which is less than he could make if he went into a fashionable group practice, something he has considered doing at a later point in his career. Peter and Dorothy moved out of their apartment and began purchasing a $300,000 condominium in San Francisco. Their increased living expenses made it difficult for them to pay off very much of their educational loans. Peter urged Dorothy to go to work for a corporate law firm (where she would easily be able to triple her public interest salary) so that they can pay off their loans more quickly and begin to enjoy the affluent life-style they had planned as college students. Dorothy, however, had become committed to public interest work, and refused to look for a higher-paying job. By 2020, relations between Peter and Dorothy had become strained to the breaking point. He met a wealthy socialite who found him interesting. In June 2020, he filed for divorce shortly after his and Dorothy’s 10th wedding anniversary. He filed a motion seeking to enforce the contract entered into by the parties on June 1, 2010 and, pursuant to that contract, to hold Dorothy liable for 50% of their combined outstanding educational loans. Dorothy did not oppose the divorce, but she argued that the June 2010 contract was a premarital agreement, and that it is not enforceable because she did not sign it “voluntarily” within the meaning of Family Code section 1615 (c) as amended in 2001 [set out on page 120 of your casebook and on pages 738-39 of the California Statutory Appendix in your casebook]. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS FULLY: (1) You are the Superior Court Judge who is hearing the Peter-Dorothy divorce case. How and why will you rule on Peter’s motion? LAW 281.2: California Marital Property Fall 2010 6 (2) Assume that you find that the contract is a premarital agreement and that it is unenforceable. How and why will you assign responsibility for the parties’ educational loans? (3) You are a Family Law/Marital Property attorney. Assume that in May, 2010, Peter and Dorothy had brought you the draft contract they wanted to enter into and asked you to include its terms in a premarital agreement. How and why did you advise them about whether their plans could be achieved in accordance with the California Premarital Agreement Act, as amended in 2001? What procedures did you advise them to follow in executing the agreement? (4) You are once again the Superior Court Judge hearing Dorothy and Peter’s divorce. Assume for the purpose of this question that the Premarital Agreement discussed in subsection (3) is the one now before you, and that it is valid. An issue has arisen as to the point at which the income and earnings of the parties became separate property pursuant to their agreement. Peter argues that the provision became effective for Dorothy in 2014, when she learned that she had passed the Fall 2013 California Bar Examination and was sworn in as a member of the State Bar of California. He also contends that the provision became effective as to him in 2017 when he had completed his training and had accepted his position at Kaiser. Dorothy argues that the provision became effective for her when she graduated from Berkeley Law in 2013 and for Peter when he graduated from Stanford Medical School in 2014. How and why will you resolve this issue? QUESTION III. 20% CREDIT Harold and Winnie were married in California in 2005. Harold is a driver for a “We are Junk” pick-up and disposal company. Winnie is a law office receptionist. Harold’s father had an extensive collection of comic books, mostly worthless but precious to Harold, which he left to Harold. Winnie does not share Harold’s interest in the collection. Harold spends a great deal of his spare time looking for missing issues to complete the sequences of the comic books. He believes that this will greatly increase the value of the collection. [A rare comic book recently sold at auction in London for $200,000.] Last month, Harold was picking up material at the home of an elderly man who was moving into a small assisted living facility. Debbie, the man’s daughter, had piled the items for Harold to pick up for disposal in the cellar of her father’s house. While Harold was collecting the material, he discovered three large cartons containing vintage comic books among the items left by LAW 281.2: California Marital Property Fall 2010 7 Debbie. He realized that some of the books were quite rare, and all were in excellent condition. After briefly wrestling with his conscience, Harold decided not to tell Debbie what he had found in the cartons. While Winnie was at work, Harold delivered the three cartons to their home and stored them with his collection. He did not mention this event to Winnie. Two weeks later, Winnie won the California lottery along with several co- workers who had formed a pool to buy lottery tickets from their earnings. Her share, which she understands to be community property, comes to $2 million, to be paid in 20 equal installments, less taxes. Meanwhile, Harold had his enhanced comic book collection appraised. The books he had “rescued” from the junkyard, in combination with those he had received from his father, comprise a collection worth $5 million. An enterprising reporter picked up the story, and it was featured in the local newspaper and on the evening TV news broadcasts. Debbie saw the story, recognized Harold, and consulted an attorney. She and her father then filed suit against Harold for the tort of conversion, seeking to recover the comic books and to obtain damages. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS FULLY: (1) Assume that Harold was found liable for the tort of conversion. He was ordered to return the comic books to Debbie’s father, and to pay him $1 million in damages. Assume that without the comic books owned by Debbie’s father, Harold’s collection is once again worthless. The books owned by Debbie’s father, without Harold’s collection, are worth at most $500,000. What property may be reached to satisfy the $1 million judgment? (2) Assume that Winnie, shocked by Harold’s behavior, files suit for divorce. How and why should the court divide the parties’ property? What, if any, are Winnie’s rights against Harold? END OF EXAMINATION