## Facts

- Jack Garfein (husband) and Carroll Baker Garfein (wife) were motion picture professionals; during marriage, the husband helped procure and negotiate the wife’s employment.
- During the marriage, the wife entered a multi-year “play or pay” contract with Paramount Pictures providing annual compensation for up to six additional pictures, payable whether or not she was actually cast.
- After the film “Harlow,” Paramount did not call the wife for additional films and did not pay as required; the community incurred over $126,000 in attorney fees and costs to litigate, obtaining a judgment compelling Paramount’s compliance.
- The parties separated on June 30, 1967.
- In the divorce proceeding, the husband asserted (1) a “marital partnership” making all property partnership property, (2) an oral separation-time property agreement allocating the contract payments (including a 60/40 split for later years), and (3) that all payments under the contract/judgment were community property because the contract and judgment arose during marriage.
- The trial court rejected the “marital partnership” and oral agreement claims as factually unproven and ruled that payments received by the wife after separation under the Paramount contract were her separate property; it also found no undivided community property beyond what the parties had already arranged.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a finding that the spouses formed a “marital partnership” that converted their property rights, including contract proceeds, into partnership property.
2. Whether the evidence compelled a finding that the spouses entered a binding oral property settlement agreement at separation allocating future Paramount payments.
3. Whether payments received after separation under a multi-year “play or pay” contract (and an enforcement judgment obtained during marriage) are community property or the earning spouse’s separate property.

## Decision

- The interlocutory divorce decree was affirmed.
- Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings rejecting both the alleged “marital partnership” and the claimed oral property settlement agreement.
- As a matter of law, post-separation payments under the Paramount contract were properly characterized as the wife’s separate property, notwithstanding that the contract and enforcement judgment were obtained during marriage.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of disputed factual issues (including existence of agreements and credibility) is limited; findings supported by substantial evidence will not be reweighed on appeal.
- In California marital property law, compensation attributable to an individual spouse’s post-separation services, availability, or earning capacity is generally that spouse’s separate property.
- A contract executed during marriage and a judgment enforcing it do not necessarily convert all later payments into a fixed community asset when the payments function as compensation tied to post-separation personal services or contractual availability.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the husband’s partnership and oral-settlement theories and affirmed that the wife’s post-separation receipts under a multi-year entertainment “play or pay” agreement were her separate property even though the contract and enforcement judgment originated during the marriage.


Garfein v. Garfein, 16 Cal. App. 3d 155 (Ct. App. 1971)