“Once a determination has been made that property is community property, quasi-community property or quasi-marital property, it must be divided equally between the parties. [Fam. Code, § 2550; In re Marriage of Olson, 27 Cal. 3d 414, 165 Cal. Rptr. 820, 612 P.2d 910 (1980)] The court is obligated to characterize, value, equally divide property and distribute it between the parties. [In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 43 Cal. App. 3d 1039, 118 Cal. Rptr. 232 (1st Dist. 1974)] The court must value the assets without allowing subjecting them to an “auction” between the parties. [In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal. App. 4th 81, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 (1st Dist. 1993)]”
“The term “equally” means as near as practical to a mathematically equal division of property. [In re Marriage of Juick, 21 Cal. App. 3d 421, 98 Cal. Rptr. 324 (2d Dist. 1971)] The court has broad discretion to determine the manner in which community property is divided when fixing the value of assets and liabilities in order to accomplish an equal division. [In re Marriage of Duncan, 90 Cal. App. 4th 617, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833 (4th Dist. 2001), review denied, (Oct. 10, 2001)] The trial court’s determination of the value of a particular asset is a factual one and as long as that determination is within the range of the evidence presented, it will be upheld on appeal. [In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal. App. 4th 81, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 (1st Dist. 1993)]”
“The means by which a court may divide the community estate include in-kind, asset distribution or cash out, sale and division, or conversion to tenancy in common. [d’Elia v. d’Elia, 58 Cal. App. 4th 415, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 (4th Dist. 1997); In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal. App. 4th 81, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 (1st Dist. 1993)] Methods of division of the community estate which the parties may use by themselves if they are agreeable include: the piece-of-cake division (one side makes up two lists of the community property, the other gets to pick which list to take), one-values, one-chooses (one spouse puts the values on the property, the other chooses which items he or she will take at the stated value up to one-half the total), and the you-take-it-or-I-will-take-it (one party places a value on an asset at which he or she is willing to either let the other take the asset or be awarded it if not taken). [d’Elia v. d’Elia, 58 Cal. App. 4th 415, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 (4th Dist. 1997); In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal. App. 4th 81, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 (1st Dist. 1993)] The court may also reserve the right to divide at some future date, or defer the home sale pursuant to Fam. Code § 3800.”
“In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, the trial court has broad discretion to determine the manner in which community property is divided, although, absent an agreement, it must be divided equally. [In re Marriage of Foley, 189 Cal. App. 4th 521, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 (2d Dist. 2010)]”
“The family law court may not look to fault in dissolving the marriage, dividing property, or ordering support. [In re Marriage of Greenway, 217 Cal. App. 4th 628, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 (4th Dist. 2013)] The parties in a marital dissolution action can agree on a lopsided division of community property, but only if it is evidenced (1) by a written agreement of the parties, or (2) by an oral stipulation of the parties in open court. [In re Marriage of Woolsey, 220 Cal. App. 4th 881, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 (3d Dist. 2013)]”
“The trial court is generally required to divide the community estate of the parties in a dissolution proceeding equally, and in satisfying this mandate, the court must distribute both the assets and the obligations of the community so that the residual assets awarded to each party after the deduction of the obligations are equal. [In re Marriage of Walker, 240 Cal. App. 4th 986, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 134 (4th Dist. 2015)] In satisfying the statutory mandate to divide the marital estate equally, the court must distribute both the assets and the obligations of the community so that the residual assets awarded to each party after the deduction of the obligations are equal. [Marriage of Peterson, 243 Cal. App. 4th 923, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588 (2d Dist. 2016)] In a divorce proceeding, the court possesses no authority to divide the community estate between the parties other than equally. [Marriage of Peterson, 243 Cal. App. 4th 923, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588 (2d Dist. 2016)]”
“A truly equal division of community property can be attained by either a sale of assets and division of proceeds, or an in-kind division. If all of the assets are reduced to cash, the proceeds can readily be divided equally between the parties. The marketplace, rather than the court, places a value on assets. The court is specifically authorized to order a sale of assets if necessary to bring about an equal division. [In re Marriage of Holmgren, 60 Cal. App. 3d 869, 130 Cal. Rptr. 440 (1st Dist. 1976)]”
“The second method of division that guarantees an equal division of the property is to divide the assets in kind between the parties. In this method, the court simply awards one-half of the assets to each party. This method works well for situations involving cash, stock and related items. When circumstances warrant it, however, the court may assign a risky investment wholly to one spouse rather than dividing it by in-kind division. [In re Marriage of Quay, 18 Cal. App. 4th 961, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537 (6th Dist. 1993), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Sept. 8, 1993) (holding that the trial court in a dissolution of marriage proceeding could assign to the husband the entire amount of a defaulted note executed in connection with a loan of community funds where the husband managed the funds and loaned the money to a friend after his wife had refused to do so)]”
“Due to the equality of interest in any given item of community property, it is easy to view an allocation of the item to one spouse or the other at the time of dissolution as, in effect, a “sale,” but the division of a community estate is not a simplistic “sale” of individual assets, asset by asset, but an equal division of the whole of a community estate. [d’Elia v. d’Elia, 58 Cal. App. 4th 415, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 (4th Dist. 1997) (noting that analyzing an allocation as a de facto sale is a handy way of thinking about a division of community property and that it is an old trick of family law judges, when a divorcing couple is bickering about who gets what in the way of miscellaneous property such as pots, pans and furniture, to force the couple to conduct a kind of “auction” whereby each spouse is forced to “bid” for the item)]”
“In many cases, the community owns an asset having a substantial value that is impractical to sell or to which one party has a strong attachment and wishes to retain. This is common in a situation involving a business that provides a form of livelihood to one of the parties [In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal. App. 4th 81, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 575 (1st Dist. 1993) (wherein both parties desired to run the family business, the only privately owned geyser in the United States)] or a family residence in which one party wishes to reside. In many situations, the award of that asset to a party will create an unequal division and will require a cash payment to the other spouse from the party awarded the asset. The court has the power to elect this form of division, and it is a common method of equalizing the division of community property. [In re Marriage of Kozen, 185 Cal. App. 3d 1258, 230 Cal. Rptr. 304 (2d Dist. 1986)] After valuing and allocating the assets between the parties, the party with the most value then owes money to the other, and some form of payment is necessary.”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
