## Facts

- Vera Snow Connolly (wife) and John James Connolly (husband) married in 1961 and separated in 1973; the wife filed for dissolution in August 1973.
- The husband became an outside director of Amdahl Corporation in 1972 and purchased 10,000 shares at $0.06 per share; the shares were community property.
- At trial, Amdahl stock was not publicly traded and Amdahl had not yet made a profit.
- Before trial, trade and financial publications reported Amdahl was considering a public offering and described favorable prospects; this information was available to the wife and counsel through reasonable inquiry.
- The parties stipulated to value securities as of May 17, 1976 (the first day of trial).
- The trial court valued the Amdahl shares at $7.50 per share, awarded the shares to the husband, and offset the division by awarding the wife other community assets.
- After judgment, Amdahl completed a public offering and the stock’s value rose substantially.
- The wife moved to reopen or set aside the property judgment, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on the husband’s failure to disclose information about Amdahl’s plans and prospects; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a contested dissolution between represented spouses, a spouse has a fiduciary obligation to disclose facts affecting an asset’s value when those facts are publicly available and readily discoverable by reasonable inquiry.
2. Whether the husband’s nondisclosure of such information constituted fraud or breach of duty sufficient to set aside or reopen the property division judgment.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the wife’s post-judgment motion.
- The husband had no fiduciary obligation to volunteer information about Amdahl’s prospects where the information was publicly available and readily ascertainable by the wife or her counsel.
- Because the husband did not misrepresent facts and answered questions asked of him truthfully, his silence did not amount to fraud or actionable concealment.
- Post-judgment appreciation of the stock did not justify reopening a property division based on a stipulated valuation date and supported trial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- In a litigated dissolution proceeding between represented parties in an adversarial posture, a spouse generally has no duty to volunteer publicly available information affecting the value of community assets when the other spouse can obtain it through reasonable inquiry.
- Nondisclosure is not fraud absent a duty to disclose, active concealment, or affirmative misrepresentation.
- Property division judgments are not reopened merely because an asset later appreciates; valuation is assessed as of the agreed or legally prescribed valuation date based on information reasonably available at that time.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the property division because the husband’s failure to volunteer publicly available information about a potential public offering did not breach a fiduciary duty or constitute fraud, and later increases in value did not undermine a judgment supported by evidence on the stipulated valuation date.


In re Marriage of Connolly, 23 Cal. 3d 590, 591 P.2d 911 (Cal. 1979)