## Facts

- Thomas Martin (defendant) and Jean Martin (plaintiff) married in 1948 and divorced in 1979.
- In the later part of the marriage, Thomas maintained an extramarital relationship with another woman for approximately 15 years.
- In connection with that relationship, Thomas made significant expenditures, including payments of money, gifts, and travel-related expenses.
- Jean filed for divorce.
- In the dissolution proceedings, the trial court determined that the parties’ total community assets were approximately $3,555,006.
- The trial court further determined that Thomas had misappropriated $67,704 of community funds in connection with the extramarital relationship.
- The trial court ordered Thomas to pay $67,704 (the amount found misappropriated).
- Jean appealed, arguing that the $67,704 award should include interest.
- Thomas cross-appealed, contending that (1) the funds spent on the extramarital relationship were supported by “valuable consideration” in the form of benefits to his personal happiness, and (2) he was responsible for building the community estate exceeding $3 million.
- The California Court of Appeal accepted the appeal and cross-appeal for review.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly treated Thomas’s expenditures connected to a long-term extramarital relationship as a misappropriation of community funds requiring reimbursement.
2. Whether Thomas could avoid reimbursement by asserting that the expenditures were supported by “valuable consideration” in the form of personal happiness, or by arguing that his role in accumulating the community estate should affect the reimbursement order.
3. Whether the reimbursement award for misappropriated community funds should include interest.

## Decision

- The trial court determined that Thomas had misappropriated $67,704 from the community estate in connection with the extramarital relationship and ordered him to pay that amount.
- Jean appealed the reimbursement award on the ground that it should include interest.
- Thomas cross-appealed, arguing that the expenditures were supported by “valuable consideration” (personal happiness) and that he should not be charged given his asserted role in amassing the community’s multi-million-dollar assets.
- The California Court of Appeal took the case to address the parties’ challenges to the reimbursement award, including the interest request and the defenses raised on cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- In a marital dissolution, a court may examine whether community funds were used for a noncommunity purpose and, if so, may order reimbursement based on the amount found to have been misappropriated.
- A spouse opposing reimbursement may argue that the disputed expenditures were supported by consideration or otherwise justified; the court must evaluate such arguments in deciding whether reimbursement is warranted.
- When reimbursement is ordered for community funds found to have been misappropriated, the question of interest may arise as part of determining what amount will compensate for the loss associated with the diversion of funds.

## Conclusion

Martin v. Martin, Sup. Ct. No. 230798 (1984) concerns a dissolution proceeding in which the trial court found that, out of approximately $3,555,006 in community assets, the husband misappropriated $67,704 in connection with a 15-year extramarital relationship and ordered him to pay that amount; the wife appealed seeking interest, and the husband cross-appealed arguing personal-happiness “consideration” and his asserted role in creating the community estate as grounds to avoid reimbursement.
