## Facts

- Samuel and Maureen Manfer married in 1973 and had three daughters.
- In June 2004, after a quarrel, Samuel moved out of the family home into a separate apartment.
- In June 2004, Maureen decided the marriage was over, and the trial court found the parties’ private conduct showed a complete and final break in the marital relationship.
- The parties agreed to conceal the separation from family and friends until after the holidays and continued to appear publicly as a couple.
- On March 15, 2005, they publicly disclosed that the marriage had ended.
- In a bifurcated dissolution proceeding, the trial court found the marital relationship ended in June 2004 but set March 15, 2005 as the legal date of separation, reasoning that public understanding controlled.
- The trial court certified the date-of-separation issue for immediate appellate review; Maureen appealed.

## Issues

1. Under Family Code § 771, is the date of separation determined by public perception of the parties’ status or by at least one spouse’s intent to end the marriage plus objectively verifiable conduct showing finality?
2. Applying the correct standard, was the trial court’s selection of March 15, 2005 erroneous where its factual findings established a complete and final break in June 2004?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the interlocutory order to the extent it set March 15, 2005 as the date of separation.
- The court held the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by using an “outsider’s viewpoint” based on public perception.
- The court directed that a date in June 2004, consistent with the trial court’s factual findings, be used as the date of separation.

## Legal Principles

- The date of separation under Family Code § 771 does not depend on whether the public would view the parties as separated.
- The governing test is whether at least one spouse intended to end the marriage and whether objective conduct occurred that shows the finality of the marital relationship.
- A mutual decision to keep the separation private for family or personal reasons does not postpone the legal date of separation when intent and objective conduct establishing finality already exist.
- Prior authority relied on by the trial court did not create a public-perception requirement; applying such a requirement would produce unfair results for couples who delay disclosure for innocent reasons.

## Conclusion

The court held that separation is established by a spouse’s intent to end the marriage coupled with objective conduct showing a final break, and that the parties’ concealment of their separation could not shift the separation date from June 2004 to the later public disclosure date.


In re Marriage of Manfer, 144 Cal. App. 4th 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)