## Facts

- William R. Roesch (husband) and Helen F. Roesch (wife) married in Pennsylvania in 1947 and separated on December 28, 1973.
- For virtually the entire marriage, the parties’ marital domicile was Pennsylvania, a common-law property state; after separation, wife and the parties’ minor son remained in Pennsylvania.
- Husband worked for a Pennsylvania steel company for many years and rose to senior executive positions.
- On November 12, 1973—before the parties separated and while they were still living in Pennsylvania—husband executed an employment agreement with a California employer in Oakland to serve as president and chief executive officer beginning January 1974, with substantial salary and bonus potential.
- Husband later established his residence in California and filed a marital dissolution action in Alameda County, California, in July 1974.
- During the marriage, the parties acquired certain property in Pennsylvania as tenants by the entireties (including the family residence and other items).
- Husband also acquired other assets during the marriage that were titled in his name alone and treated as his separate property under Pennsylvania law (including liquid assets and other financial and business interests).
- The trial court characterized and divided:
  - the Pennsylvania entireties property as community property; and
  - additional Pennsylvania-acquired assets titled to husband alone as quasi-community property under California law.
- Wife appealed from portions of the judgment challenging, among other things, the characterization and division of the Pennsylvania-acquired interests and related financial orders.

## Issues

1. Whether California could properly apply its quasi-community property statutes to treat and divide as quasi-community property assets acquired in Pennsylvania while the spouses were domiciled in Pennsylvania and the assets were held as separate property under Pennsylvania law.
2. Whether the trial court could treat property held as tenants by the entireties in Pennsylvania as California community property for purposes of division without a choice-of-law analysis grounded in Pennsylvania’s interests.
3. How the husband’s rights under the California employment agreement executed in Pennsylvania before separation should be characterized for purposes of property division.
4. Whether the trial court could condition child support on the custodial parent’s conduct concerning visitation.

## Decision

- Reversed in part and remanded the judgment’s property characterization and division to the extent it applied California quasi-community/community property concepts to Pennsylvania-acquired property without proper recognition of Pennsylvania’s governing interest as the long-term marital domicile.
- Directed reconsideration of the division of the parties’ Pennsylvania entireties property and other Pennsylvania-acquired interests under an appropriate choice-of-law approach rather than automatic application of California quasi-community property rules.
- Rejected tying child support to visitation-related conditions and required correction of any provision making support contingent on visitation compliance.
- Left the dissolution itself intact, while requiring further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s conflict-of-laws analysis and any necessary adjustments to financial orders affected by the corrected property characterization.

## Legal Principles

- Marital property rights are generally determined by the law of the spouses’ marital domicile at the time of acquisition, and a later forum state must account for that state’s regulatory interest when deciding characterization and division.
- California’s quasi-community property statutes do not authorize wholesale recharacterization of out-of-state property where California’s connection to the marriage and its property is slight and the other state’s connection is dominant.
- Interests in property created and held under another state’s forms of ownership (such as Pennsylvania tenancy by the entireties) cannot be converted into California community property for division purposes simply because dissolution is filed in California; a choice-of-law analysis is required.
- Child support is for the child’s benefit and may not be used as a sanction for visitation disputes; conditioning support on visitation invites self-help and improperly places the child at risk.
- Where support or other financial orders depend on an incorrect property characterization, the trial court must revisit those orders as needed after correcting the property analysis.

## Conclusion

Marriage of Roesch holds that when a marriage was centered in Pennsylvania and the spouses acquired and held property there under Pennsylvania law, a California dissolution court may not automatically treat that property as community or quasi-community property; instead, the court must apply a conflict-of-laws approach that gives weight to Pennsylvania’s substantial interest, and it must also remove any condition that makes child support depend on visitation compliance.


Marriage of Roesch, 147 Cal. Rptr. 586 (1978)