Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and W married June 17, 1972, and separated nine and one-half years later on December 15, 1981. In 1974, they moved to Hawaii so H could continue his studies there. The couple had no children. H was a full-time student for the entire nine and one-half years of the marriage, advancing from an undergraduate program to postgraduate studies and finally, medical school; he received his medical degree five months after separation. W worked full-time during the marriage, using all of her income for family expenses. For the years 1975 through 1981 the combined gross income was $81,779.92, of which W contributed $66,923.92 in earnings and H contributed $14,856. H's student loans totaled $26,642. H used at least $3,000 in loan funds for direct educational expenses (tuition, books, fees), leaving approximately $23,642 for the couple's living expenses. For the past 17 years, W has worked as a pharmacy clerk and, since 1979, as a pharmacy technician. Following separation, W held two part-time jobs, working sometimes sixty hours per week to meet monthly living expenses. In 1986, she assumed a full-time position at Kaiser. During their marriage, W talked about the possibility of attending school for culinary arts. At trial, W said she would like to enroll in the 16-month program at the California Culinary Academy in San Francisco. Her aspiration is to start her own catering business. H is now is an anesthesiologist with the Permanente Medical Group. In 1987, his annual salary was approximately $94,000. With overtime, his actual income has been much higher. The trial court found that W did not really contribute to H's education as it 'was minimal to the point of 'de minimis non curat lex''; W evidenced no need for spousal support, retraining or education to obtain more marketable skills/employment; and the couple's standard of living during the marriage did not exceed W's present standard of living. The court determined there were no community contributions which should be reimbursed. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.