## Facts

- Louis J. Imperato (husband) and Diana L. Imperato (wife) married in 1959 and separated on December 30, 1971.
- Husband operated Personalized Data Delivery Service (PDD), a data-processing delivery corporation formed in 1969; by separation he was its sole shareholder, president, and manager.
- The parties stipulated PDD was community property.
- PDD’s net worth was $1,665.85 at separation and $17,614.26 as of June 30, 1973.
- Trial occurred on August 22, 1973.
- The trial court valued PDD as of June 30, 1973 (the closest date to trial supported by proof), awarded PDD to husband, and ordered him to pay wife one-half of that value.

## Issues

1. In a marital dissolution action, may a community asset be valued as of a date near trial rather than the date of separation?
2. Does post-separation appreciation in a community-owned corporation constitute the operating spouse’s separate “earnings” or “accumulations” under Civil Code § 5118?

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in valuing the community business as of a date reasonably close to trial (June 30, 1973), rather than at separation.
- The increase in PDD’s value between separation and trial remained a community asset and was not the husband’s separate property under Civil Code § 5118.

## Legal Principles

- In dissolution proceedings, community property may be valued at the time of trial or as near to trial as reasonably practicable, absent a controlling statutory rule requiring a different date.
- Civil Code § 5118 addresses the character of a spouse’s post-separation “earnings and accumulations” as separate property; it does not recharacterize an existing community asset or require valuing all community assets at separation.
- Appreciation in the value of an existing community asset (including stock in a community-owned corporation) generally remains an incident of community ownership, even if the value increase occurs after separation.
- A party’s management and control of a community-owned corporation after separation does not, by itself, convert the corporation’s post-separation increase in value into that party’s separate property where the asset itself remains community property.

## Conclusion

The court held that the community-owned business was properly valued on a date near trial supported by the evidence, and that the business’s post-separation increase in value was community property rather than the husband’s separate earnings or accumulations under Civil Code § 5118.


In re Marriage of Imperato, 45 Cal. App. 3d 432 (Ct. App. 1975)