## Facts

- Vivian Biddle and Paul Biddle dissolved an approximately 21-year marriage.
- During the marriage, Paul, a federal employee working at Stanford University, discovered suspected fraudulent billing to the United States.
- In 1991, Paul filed a federal False Claims Act qui tam action as relator on behalf of the United States; the United States declined to intervene.
- At the time of dissolution in 1994, the qui tam action remained pending at the pleading stage.
- In the dissolution property division, the trial court ruled the qui tam action was not property and not a community asset, and entered judgment that Vivian had no community property interest in the action.
- Vivian appealed the judgment classifying the qui tam action (and any potential proceeds) as not community property; an earlier attempted appeal from a memorandum of decision was also before the court.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal False Claims Act qui tam cause of action initiated during marriage, and any contingent right to share in a recovery, constitutes community property in dissolution.
2. Whether an appeal taken from a trial court memorandum of decision is taken from an appealable order.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the earlier appeal from the memorandum of decision because it was not an appealable order.
- The court affirmed the dissolution judgment declaring Vivian had no community property interest in Paul’s qui tam action.
- The court held the qui tam cause of action is not “property” of the relator in a manner recognizable as a community asset.
- The court held any potential relator share of a recovery is derivative of the United States’ claim and arises only from the federal statutory scheme, not from a divisible marital property interest.

## Legal Principles

- Community property generally includes property acquired by a married person during marriage unless a statute provides otherwise (Fam. Code § 760).
- Although causes of action are often treated as property, a False Claims Act qui tam action differs because the underlying claim belongs to the United States, and the relator proceeds in the government’s name.
- The relator’s interest is a statutorily defined, contingent share of any recovery and is subject to substantial federal control over the litigation and disposition.
- A spouse’s interest in community property does not extend to transforming the government’s enforcement claim, or the relator’s contingent statutory share, into a divisible community asset.
- A trial court memorandum of decision is not an appealable order; appellate jurisdiction requires an appeal from an appealable judgment or order.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that a pending False Claims Act qui tam action filed during marriage, and any potential relator proceeds, are not community property because the claim belongs to the United States and the relator’s expected share is a contingent statutory benefit rather than a marital asset.


In re Marriage of Biddle, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 569 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)