In re Marriage of Maynard
| Decision Date | 20 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | H044039 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of JULIA and MARK MAYNARD. v. MARK T. MAYNARD, Appellant. JULIA S. MAYNARD, Respondent, |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-08-FL146860
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Mark T. Maynard and respondent Julia S. Maynard were married for over 20 years and had two children, Evan and Maxwell.[1] Julia filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in July 2008, shortly after the parties separated. A status-only judgment of dissolution was filed on September 22, 2011.
Between 2010 and 2016, the court conducted a series of trials addressing designated matters. There were three main trial proceedings conducted by three different judicial officers each of whom rendered lengthy written orders. The first trial (conducted over four days) before Temporary Judge Edward Mills (Judge Mills) concerned five parcels of real estate. The trial involved issues of valuation, division, Mark's claim for reimbursement of separate property contributions to community real property assets under Family Code section 2640, [2] and other reimbursement claims asserted by the parties. From that proceeding, an order was filed May 28 2010 (the Real Estate Order).
The second trial (conducted over seven days) before Judge Margaret Johnson involved personal property and other issues and was generally identified as a trial on bifurcated reimbursement claims. The order after that trial was filed on February 20, 2015 (the Reimbursement Order).
A third trial (conducted over nine days with additional posttrial proceedings) before Judge James Towery addressed a collection of remaining issues, including the parties' retirement accounts, claimed support overpayments, rights and obligations concerning a family business, LTE, Inc. (LTE) rights and obligations concerning the LTE Profit Sharing Plan (LTE Plan), miscellaneous reimbursement claims, and the parties' respective breach of fiduciary duty claims. An amended final statement of decision on remaining issues and judgment was filed on April 22, 2016 (the Judgment). The Judgment referred to and incorporated the prior rulings from the Real Estate Order and the Reimbursement Order.
Mark filed an appeal from the Judgment. He asserts 14 challenges (some with subparts) to the Judgment. We conclude that several of these challenges have merit. In summary, Mark's claims, and our conclusions regarding the merits of those claims, are as follows:
A. Valuation of Truckee Properties: Mark contends that the court erred in its valuation of two community-owned real estate parcels located in Truckee, California, namely, 4156 South Shore Drive (South Shore), and 13351 Sierra Drive (Sierra). (Hereafter, South Shore and Sierra are collectively referred to as the Truckee Properties.)
We conclude the court erred with respect to the valuation of both Truckee Properties.
B. Mark's Section 2640 Reimbursement Request: Mark asserts that the court erred by significantly reducing the amount of his claim for reimbursement of his separate property contributions under section 2640, subdivision (b) (hereafter, section 2640(b)) that were made to improve community-owned real property, namely, 5969 Vista Loop in San Jose (Vista Loop).
We conclude there was no error.
C. Alleged Structural Error in Bypassing Case Manager: Mark contends that the court erred because, notwithstanding the parties' stipulation to the assignment of a case manager and a temporary judge, the court issued procedural orders that resulted in "bypassing" the case manager and temporary judge in subsequent proceedings.
We conclude there was no error.
D. Mark's Personal Property Reimbursement Claims: Mark asserts that the court erred in rejecting his claim for reimbursement of postseparation payments he made for community obligations for a truck, a car, a personal watercraft, and a boat.
We conclude there was no error as to any of the four items of personal property.
E. Credits for Sanctions "Paid"; Interest on Sanctions: Mark contends that the court erred by including in the Judgment sanctions of $5, 000 and $1, 500 from prior court orders; he claims he paid the sanctions. Mark also challenges the award of prejudgment interest on a $10, 000 sanctions order.
We conclude there was no error as to any of the three issues.
F. Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Mark (IRA Distribution): Mark contends that court erred in awarding Julia damages of $28, 832 for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with his 2010 liquidation of his retirement accounts.
We conclude there was error.
G. Mark's Real Estate Reimbursement Claim: Mark asserts that, due to confusion between two judicial officers hearing the proceedings, the court erred in denying his claim for reimbursements based upon the postseparation payment of $42, 685.54 for community-owned real property expenses; the expenses were paid after the first trial had concluded and before the Real Estate Order was entered.
We conclude that the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of the evidence provided at the bifurcated trial on reimbursement claims held on January 28, 2013. The evidence to be reconsidered concerns Mark's claim for reimbursement of postseparation expenses for community-owned real property. The court on remand should determine whether Mark provided adequate proof of such claim and should therefore receive reimbursement.
H. Sanctions Awards Against Mark: Mark challenges two orders requiring him to pay Julia attorney fees as sanctions under section 271. The amounts imposed were $10, 000 in an interim order of January 29, 2013, and $25, 000 in the April 22, 2016 Judgment.
We conclude there was partial error as to the imposition of the $10, 000 award, and that sanctions of no more than $6, 000 should have been ordered. We conclude further that there was error as to the imposition of the $25, 000 sanctions award.
We conclude there was no error.
J. Mark's Expense Reimbursement Claim (Insurance Premiums): Mark contends the court erred in denying his claim for reimbursement of post-separation expenditures made to satisfy certain community obligations, namely, medical, dental, and disability insurance premiums.
We conclude there was no error.
K. Mark's Claim Based on Julia's Use of Community Cash: Mark contends that the court erred in denying reimbursement of one-half of the $4, 000 in community funds that Julia withdrew prior to separation, which she allegedly used to pay for her family law attorney.
We conclude there was no error.
L. Prejudgment Interest: Mark contends that the trial court erred with respect to prejudgment interest findings in that the court (1) undercalculated interest on his recovery for overpaid child support, (2) omitted interest on his recovery for overpaid spousal support, (3) overstated interest on sanctions of $5, 000 imposed against him, (4) imposed interest on sanctions of $1, 500 previously ordered against him, and (5)overstated interest on sanctions of $10, 000 imposed against him.
We conclude there is no error as to any of the five issues. Because the sanctions award of $10, 000 must be reduced to $6, 000, the prejudgment interest as to that award must be recalculated.
M. Duplicate Abstract of Judgment: Mark argues that an abstract of judgment was prematurely issued on June 27, 2012, and that it should be ordered removed.
We conclude there was no error.
N. ADA Issues: Mark asserts that the court erred in denying his May 2009 request for accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and that the court erred further by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to him in response to subsequent ADA requests.
We conclude there was no error.
We will therefore reverse the Judgment with directions that the court below conduct limited further proceedings. The court shall make a redetermination of the fair market value of the Truckee Properties. The court shall reconsider the evidence provided on January 28, 2013, at the bifurcated trial on reimbursements claims concerning Mark's claim for reimbursement of expenses paid for community-owned real property between February 11, 2010 and May 28, 2010, to determine whether Mark provided adequate proof of such claim, and, if so, it shall include one-half the amount of such expenses paid as a credit to Mark in the new judgment. Upon conducting the limited further proceedings, the court shall enter a new judgment, which shall (1) utilize the language and findings of the prior Judgment, except insofar as utilizing the language and findings may be inconsistent with the holdings and directives of this opinion; (2) utilize the redetermined values of the Truckee Properties; (3) enter a finding in favor of Mark as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim (IRA distribution) based upon the absence of proof of damage, and strike the award of $28, 832 in favor of Julia relative to that claim; (4) if the court determines it appropriate, include a credit to Mark for one-half of the expenses for community owned real property made between February 11, 2010 and May 28, 2010; (5) reduce the $10, 000 award of sanctions against Mark to $6, 000; (6) strike the $25, 000 award of sanctions against Mark; (7) correct the total amount of sanctions owed by Mark from $41, 500 to $12, 500; (8) recalculate the amount of prejudgment interest on the sanctions award of $6, 000 (previously in the amount of $10, 000); (9) correct the total amount of prejudgment interest owed by Mark on the sanctions awards to reflect the sum of (a) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial