## Facts

- In a marital dissolution, the community’s principal asset was 66,304 shares of Logicon, Inc. common stock acquired during the marriage.
- The trial court found that Husband’s senior corporate roles were influenced by his holding a significant block of Logicon shares.
- The trial court awarded all 66,304 shares to Husband as his separate property, while recognizing Wife’s one-half community interest (33,152 shares).
- Rather than dividing the stock immediately, the judgment permitted Husband to retain Wife’s half subject to conditions that contemplated later payments or releases of shares over time and allocated certain market-risk consequences.
- Wife appealed, arguing the findings supporting the stock award lacked evidentiary support, that she was entitled to an equal in-kind division of the shares, and that the overall community-property division was not substantially equal.
- Husband cross-appealed, challenging a provision that placed on him the risk of loss if the stock fell below a specified value per share.
- The trial court stated its property and financial orders were interrelated and intended to achieve a balance.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the findings used to justify awarding the entire community-owned block of stock to Husband while delaying or conditioning Wife’s receipt of her half interest.
2. Whether, on these facts, California community-property law required an equal in-kind division of the Logicon shares.
3. Whether the community-property division satisfied the statutory requirement of a substantially equal division.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment insofar as it disposed of the Logicon stock and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the findings used to justify concentrating the stock in Husband’s hands were not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court concluded that an equal in-kind division of the Logicon shares was required on this record.
- Because the stock was the major community asset and the trial court’s orders were interdependent, the court directed the trial court on remand to reconsider the overall property division and related financial orders after correcting the stock division.
- The court did not reach Husband’s challenge to the risk-of-loss allocation or other secondary issues because reversal on the stock disposition required a broader reconsideration.

## Legal Principles

- Community property must be divided in a manner that is substantially equal between spouses.
- A trial court may not depart from an equal division of a major community asset based on speculation; a deviation must be supported by substantial evidence.
- Readily divisible community assets such as publicly traded stock ordinarily should be divided in kind absent evidence showing that in-kind division is impracticable or would cause legally significant harm.
- When a trial court’s property division and financial orders are designed as an interconnected allocation, reversal of the disposition of a principal asset may require reconsideration of the remaining interrelated orders on remand.

## Conclusion

The court required an equal in-kind division of the community’s Logicon stock because the asserted reasons for concentrating ownership in Husband lacked substantial evidentiary support, and it remanded for reconsideration of the broader property and financial orders tied to the stock disposition.


In re Marriage of Brigden, 80 Cal. App. 3d 380, 145 Cal. Rptr. 716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)