## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1947 and separated in 1964; they had two minor children.
- During the marriage, the husband obtained a legal education and became a licensed attorney; when he began practice, he had essentially no assets other than the ability to practice law.
- The wife worked before and during the husband’s schooling and for years after he began practicing; her earnings were treated as community income and used for living expenses and educational support.
- By 1965, the community had net assets exceeding $200,000, and the law practice generated approximately $23,412 net annually.
- The wife filed for separate maintenance; the pleadings evolved into a divorce action, and the trial court entered an interlocutory decree granting the wife a divorce and custody, dividing community property, and awarding alimony, child support, and trial-level attorney’s fees.
- In valuing assets, the trial court assigned the law practice a value of $9,866.47 (including goodwill, receivables, and bank funds) but did not award the wife any share attributable to that stated practice value; the wife also challenged valuation of a Christmas tree farm and the adequacy of support.
- The wife appealed portions of the interlocutory decree and a minute order denying attorney’s fees and costs on appeal; she did not appeal a later order also denying fees/costs and denying an increase in support.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse is entitled to a property award measured by the “value” of the other spouse’s education or professional training acquired during marriage.
2. Whether a law practice developed during marriage, including goodwill and similar intangibles, must be valued and divided as community property, and whether the trial court erred in its valuation/division.
3. Whether the trial court’s valuation of a community-owned Christmas tree farm was supported by the evidence and consistent with equal division principles.
4. Whether the alimony and child support awards constituted an abuse of discretion in light of the parties’ circumstances.
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying attorney’s fees and costs on appeal, and whether failure to appeal a later fee/support order limited appellate review.

## Decision

- The appellate court held that the husband’s education and professional license were not community property subject to separate valuation and division as an asset.
- The appellate court held that the husband’s law practice, including goodwill and other intangible elements accrued during marriage, was a community asset requiring proper valuation and an equitable allocation; the trial court’s handling of the practice in the division was erroneous.
- The appellate court reviewed challenged asset valuations, including the Christmas tree farm, to ensure they were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the requirement of an equal or substantially equal community property division.
- The appellate court reviewed alimony and child support for abuse of discretion, considering earning capacity, the size of the community estate, and the needs of the supported spouse and children.
- As to appellate fees and costs, the appellate court addressed the denial of fees/costs on appeal and recognized that a later unappealed order on fees/support constrained the scope of review.

## Legal Principles

- A professional education and license acquired during marriage are personal attributes and are not divisible community property capable of separate appraisal and distribution.
- A professional practice built during marriage may constitute community property to the extent of its going-concern value, including goodwill, receivables, and related intangible value, and must be valued and divided in the property judgment.
- The contributing spouse’s community efforts and expenditures are protected through equitable division of existing community assets and through support orders that account for earning capacity, rather than through an “education-value” property award.
- Valuation findings in property division must be supported by substantial evidence and must not arbitrarily skew the statutory requirement of an equal or substantially equal division.
- Support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion and must reasonably relate to the parties’ circumstances, including income, earning capacity, needs, and marital standard of living.
- Fee and support orders must be timely and separately appealed to obtain appellate review; failure to appeal a later order can foreclose challenges to matters resolved by that order.

## Conclusion

The court rejected treating a spouse’s education or professional license as a divisible community asset, but required that the community’s interest be protected by valuing and equitably dividing the law practice’s community property components, including goodwill and related intangibles, while applying deferential review to support and valuation determinations and enforcing ordinary appellate rules governing review of later, unappealed fee/support orders.


Todd v. Todd, 272 Cal. App. 2d 786 (Ct. App. 1969)