You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In Re Marriage of Robinson

Citations: 54 Cal. App. 3d 682; 126 Cal. Rptr. 779; 41 Cal. Comp. Cases 905; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1163Docket: Civ. 46375

Court: California Court of Appeal; January 22, 1976; California; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case addresses the division of community property and support obligations following the dissolution of a 20-year marriage. The Court of Appeals of California examined whether disability payments received by Tom Robinson after the divorce should be classified as community or separate property. Citing the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Marriage of Jones, the court concluded that post-dissolution disability payments are the separate property of the disabled spouse, as they do not compensate for community loss post-separation. Consequently, the trial court was directed to amend the judgment to reflect this classification. Mary Robinson retained custody of the couple's two minor children and was granted child support, while spousal support was reserved. Despite Tom Robinson's limited income and Mary's receipt of public assistance, the court upheld the child support order, affirming the trial court's decisions on these matters. The judgment's amendment concerning the classification of disability payments aligns with legal precedent, ensuring that only property classified as community during the marriage is subject to division.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of California Supreme Court Precedent

Application: The court relied on the precedent established in In re Marriage of Jones to distinguish between community and separate property regarding disability payments.

Reasoning: The California Supreme Court's ruling in In re Marriage of Jones was cited, establishing that personal injury damages are community property if received during the marriage but become separate property after dissolution.

Child and Spousal Support Considerations

Application: Despite the appellant's limited income and the respondent's receipt of excess public assistance, the court required the appellant to pay child support, while spousal support was reserved.

Reasoning: Mary Robinson was awarded custody of their two minor children and a weekly support allowance of $12.50 per child, while spousal support was reserved.

Classification of Post-Judgment Disability Payments

Application: The court determined that disability payments received after the dissolution of marriage are considered the separate property of the disabled spouse and not subject to division as community property.

Reasoning: Consequently, post-dissolution disability pay is treated as the separate property of the disabled spouse, not subject to division upon divorce.

Distinction Between Temporary and Permanent Disability Benefits

Application: The court differentiated between temporary and permanent disability benefits, noting the different purposes they serve in compensating the injured spouse.

Reasoning: The court differentiates between temporary and permanent disability benefits, noting that temporary benefits compensate for lost wages, while permanent benefits account for physical impairment affecting future earning capacity.