“The court has jurisdiction to order reimbursement in cases it deems appropriate for debts paid after separation but before trial. [Fam. Code, § 2626] A party is entitled to reimbursement for payments made on community property obligations unless the sums were expended in fulfillment of that party’s support obligation, the payments are pursuant to an agreement, or they were intended as a gift. In re Marriage of Epstein, 24 Cal. 3d 76, 154 Cal. Rptr. 413, 592 P.2d 1165 (1979)] If a party has control of an asset and the payment on that asset is not substantially in excess of the value of its use, then no reimbursement will be ordered. [In re Marriage of Epstein, 24 Cal. 3d 76, 154 Cal. Rptr. 413, 592 P.2d 1165 (1979)] The Epstein case authorizes for the right to reimbursement for what is commonly referred to as an “Epstein Credit.” Reimbursement for separate property contributions during the marriage are preserved unless the right to reimbursement is waived in writing. Thus in order to effectuate a gift, a party must make a written waiver of the right to reimbursement or has signed a writing that has the effect of a waiver. If there is no written waiver, the party will be reimbursed for the party’s contributions to the acquisition of the property to the extent the party traces the contributions to a separate property source. The amount reimbursed will be without interest or adjustment for change in monetary values and will not exceed the net value of the property at the time of the division. [Fam. Code, § 2640; see also In re Marriage of Perkal, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1198, 250 Cal.Rptr. 296 Cal. App. (2 Dist. 1988)]”
“In contrast to the Epstein Credit is the “Watts Charge,” by which a party is charged with the fair market value of the use of an asset to the extent that it exceeds the payments. [In re Marriage of Watts, 171 Cal. App. 3d 366, 217 Cal. Rptr. 301 (5th Dist. 1985) (holding that if a party has the exclusive use and possession of a family residence which has a fair rental value which significantly exceeds the monthly obligation, the community is entitled to reimbursement in that amount from the spouse who remains in the residence following date of separation)] Thus, a party may be reimbursed for the use of postseparation separate property to preserve a community asset [In re Marriage of Epstein, 24 Cal. 3d 76, 154 Cal. Rptr. 413, 592 P.2d 1165 (1979)] and the community may be reimbursed for the value of the exclusive use of a community asset. [In re Marriage of Watts, 171 Cal. App. 3d 366, 217 Cal. Rptr. 301 (5th Dist. 1985)]”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
