Marriage Of Davis

61 Cal.4th 846 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Keith (H) and Sheryl (W) were married on June 12, 1993. They have two children, a daughter born in August 1995 and a son born in November 1999. W filed for dissolution on December 30, 2008. W testified that they stopped being sexually intimate after their son was conceived in 1999. H testified W moved to another bedroom in 2001; W testified this happened in 2004. Their trial testimony indicates that they both attended the children's activities, but traveled to the locations by separate cars. W did her own and the children's laundry. H did his laundry. Both parties prepared meals. W claimed that by 2004, they were “living entirely separate lives.” They spoke about divorce but stayed together for the sake of the children. By 2003, H and W both has separate bank accounts. H contributed $3,200 a month to the parties' joint account from his separate account for the payment of household expenses. In January 2006, H became employed by Clorox, substantially increasing his earnings. W was frustrated when he did not increase his financial support to the household. On June 1, 2006, W announced that she was “through” with the marriage. W removed H from her American Express credit account and returned several of H's credit cards to him. She believed at this point that they were acting simply as roommates. In July 2006, wife began working full-time, substantially increasing her earnings. H left his job with Clorox in September 2006. They continued to live in the marital home after June 1, 2006. W listed the date of their separation as June 1, 2006. H listed the date of separation as January 2, 2009 (a few days after wife's filing of the petition). W did not move out of the marital home until July 2011. H subsequently filed an amended response listing the date of separation as July 1, 2011. The court found the date of separation to be June 1, 2006. The Court of Appeal affirmed. It disagreed with the majority decision in In re Marriage of Norviel, which held that physically living apart is “an indispensable threshold requirement” for separation under section 771(a).