Filed 7/8/13 Marriage of Betancourt CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. !( - )!
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of MARIA PATRICIA and JOAQUIN BETANCOURT. D062082 MARIA PATRICIA BETANCOURT,
Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DN154877)
v.
JOAQUIN BETANCOURT,
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, H. Ronald
Domnitz, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Moreno & Associates and Iman Ghasri for Appellant.
Strickland & Amezola and Barbara K. Strickland for Respondent.
Joaquin Betancourt appeals from a marriage dissolution judgment. He contends
the court erred in failing to rule on his request for reimbursement of funds allegedly used to improve his wife's separate property asset (real property in Mexico). We reverse and
remand to permit the court to rule on this issue.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Maria and Joaquin Betancourt married in 1976. Thirty-three years later, Maria
petitioned for dissolution. The parties thereafter disagreed about property division and
spousal support issues. The parties' assets consisted primarily of their family home, cars,
and bank accounts. Maria also held title to a parcel of real property located in Mexico
that she had received from her family more than 20 years earlier.
Maria was represented by counsel. In Maria's trial brief, she stated it was
undisputed the Mexican property was held in her name alone and was her separate
property. According to Maria, during the marriage a structure was built on the property
that includes commercial units and two residential apartments. Maria said the tenants pay
rent to her or her agents.1 Maria stated that she and Joaquin dispute: (1) whether there
was an agreement to put Joaquin's name on the deed to the Mexican property; and (2) the
source and amount of the funds used to build the improvements on the property. On the
latter issue, Maria said Joaquin claimed he invested approximately $80,000 of his
separate and/or community funds into the Mexican property and thus was entitled to a
1 Maria noted that she had sued one of the tenants for unpaid rent; this tenant had countersued claiming an interest in the property; and a settlement was pending. However, Maria never claimed or suggested the litigation had the potential to affect her sole ownership of the property. 2 reimbursement. Maria urged the court to reject this claim because Joaquin did not have
clear and convincing proof of the total amount or source of these funds.
Joaquin was not represented by counsel and did not submit a trial brief.
At the hearing, a Spanish-speaking interpreter translated for Joaquin. At the outset
of the hearing, the court asked the parties about title issues regarding the Mexican
property. In response to the court's questions, the parties provided conflicting and
confusing responses suggesting that title to the property was in dispute. A Mexican court
judgment proffered by Maria contributed to this confusion. During the discussion,
Joaquin repeatedly raised the issue of reimbursement for the claimed $80,000 in expenses
for improving the property, but in response to the court's questions, Joaquin was unable
to identify documents showing the source or amount of the total claimed payments.
Joaquin referred to various exhibits, but also said that Maria had taken the relevant
documents when she notified him she was filing for dissolution.
After considering the parties' often confusing and incomplete responses, the court
decided that the appropriate disposition was to defer ruling on the title issues until these
issues could be resolved in the Mexican courts under Mexican law. Thus, the court never
reached the reimbursement issue. Maria's counsel expressed agreement with the court's
approach, but Joaquin objected and asked the court to rule on his reimbursement request.
After considering additional evidence on the other issues, the court made
additional findings, including: (1) Maria was not entitled to spousal support because she
failed to disclose income from the Mexican property; (2) the family home in Oceanside
3 would be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties; and (3) several vehicles
would be owned by Joaquin and one vehicle would be owned by Maria, with Joaquin to
pay an equalizing payment.
The final judgment incorporated these rulings and also stated: "The Court
declined to exercise jurisdiction over the property in Mexico. Husband may pursue his
rights in Mexico with respect to the property. The Court retains jurisdiction to execute
any Mexican judgment if it needs to be enforced in this country."
DISCUSSION
Joaquin concedes that the Mexican property is Maria's separate property but
contends the court erred in refusing to rule on his claim for reimbursement for
expenditures used to improve that property.
In response, Maria agrees that the Mexican property was her separate property,
and acknowledges that generally the community is entitled to a reimbursement or a pro
tanto interest if community funds are used to improve one spouse's separate property.
(See In re Marriage of Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 497, 501.) However, she argues the
court's refusal to rule on the reimbursement issue was not prejudicial because Joaquin had
no documentary proof that the parties used community funds (or his separate property
assets) to build the improvements on the property.
After examining the entire appellate record, we disagree with Maria's claim that
Joaquin failed to provide any supporting evidence, and determine the appropriate
disposition is to remand this matter to allow the court to rule on the reimbursement issue.
4 Generally, "[w]here community funds are used to make capital improvements to a
spouse's separate real property, the community is entitled to reimbursement or a pro tanto
interest . . . ." (In re Marriage of Allen, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 501; accord, In re
Marriage of Sherman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 795, 800.) Based on the parties' appellate
briefs and the record below, it is undisputed that the Mexican property is Maria's separate
property and title is in her name alone. However, it is also undisputed that capital
improvements were made to the property during the marriage and Joaquin was the
primary source of income during the marriage.
Maria contends that a spouse seeking reimbursement has the burden to show the
source and amount of the funds and asks this court to review the evidence to determine
that Joaquin did not meet this burden at the hearing. However, this factual analysis is for
the trial court in the first instance, and not the appellate court. (See Bono v. Clark (2002)
103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1421.) The trial court explicitly declined to reach this issue and
thus did not determine whether Joaquin met his proof burden. Although the court could
have found that Joaquin did not present sufficient evidence supporting his claim, it was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 7/8/13 Marriage of Betancourt CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. !( - )!
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of MARIA PATRICIA and JOAQUIN BETANCOURT. D062082 MARIA PATRICIA BETANCOURT,
Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DN154877)
v.
JOAQUIN BETANCOURT,
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, H. Ronald
Domnitz, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Moreno & Associates and Iman Ghasri for Appellant.
Strickland & Amezola and Barbara K. Strickland for Respondent.
Joaquin Betancourt appeals from a marriage dissolution judgment. He contends
the court erred in failing to rule on his request for reimbursement of funds allegedly used to improve his wife's separate property asset (real property in Mexico). We reverse and
remand to permit the court to rule on this issue.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Maria and Joaquin Betancourt married in 1976. Thirty-three years later, Maria
petitioned for dissolution. The parties thereafter disagreed about property division and
spousal support issues. The parties' assets consisted primarily of their family home, cars,
and bank accounts. Maria also held title to a parcel of real property located in Mexico
that she had received from her family more than 20 years earlier.
Maria was represented by counsel. In Maria's trial brief, she stated it was
undisputed the Mexican property was held in her name alone and was her separate
property. According to Maria, during the marriage a structure was built on the property
that includes commercial units and two residential apartments. Maria said the tenants pay
rent to her or her agents.1 Maria stated that she and Joaquin dispute: (1) whether there
was an agreement to put Joaquin's name on the deed to the Mexican property; and (2) the
source and amount of the funds used to build the improvements on the property. On the
latter issue, Maria said Joaquin claimed he invested approximately $80,000 of his
separate and/or community funds into the Mexican property and thus was entitled to a
1 Maria noted that she had sued one of the tenants for unpaid rent; this tenant had countersued claiming an interest in the property; and a settlement was pending. However, Maria never claimed or suggested the litigation had the potential to affect her sole ownership of the property. 2 reimbursement. Maria urged the court to reject this claim because Joaquin did not have
clear and convincing proof of the total amount or source of these funds.
Joaquin was not represented by counsel and did not submit a trial brief.
At the hearing, a Spanish-speaking interpreter translated for Joaquin. At the outset
of the hearing, the court asked the parties about title issues regarding the Mexican
property. In response to the court's questions, the parties provided conflicting and
confusing responses suggesting that title to the property was in dispute. A Mexican court
judgment proffered by Maria contributed to this confusion. During the discussion,
Joaquin repeatedly raised the issue of reimbursement for the claimed $80,000 in expenses
for improving the property, but in response to the court's questions, Joaquin was unable
to identify documents showing the source or amount of the total claimed payments.
Joaquin referred to various exhibits, but also said that Maria had taken the relevant
documents when she notified him she was filing for dissolution.
After considering the parties' often confusing and incomplete responses, the court
decided that the appropriate disposition was to defer ruling on the title issues until these
issues could be resolved in the Mexican courts under Mexican law. Thus, the court never
reached the reimbursement issue. Maria's counsel expressed agreement with the court's
approach, but Joaquin objected and asked the court to rule on his reimbursement request.
After considering additional evidence on the other issues, the court made
additional findings, including: (1) Maria was not entitled to spousal support because she
failed to disclose income from the Mexican property; (2) the family home in Oceanside
3 would be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties; and (3) several vehicles
would be owned by Joaquin and one vehicle would be owned by Maria, with Joaquin to
pay an equalizing payment.
The final judgment incorporated these rulings and also stated: "The Court
declined to exercise jurisdiction over the property in Mexico. Husband may pursue his
rights in Mexico with respect to the property. The Court retains jurisdiction to execute
any Mexican judgment if it needs to be enforced in this country."
DISCUSSION
Joaquin concedes that the Mexican property is Maria's separate property but
contends the court erred in refusing to rule on his claim for reimbursement for
expenditures used to improve that property.
In response, Maria agrees that the Mexican property was her separate property,
and acknowledges that generally the community is entitled to a reimbursement or a pro
tanto interest if community funds are used to improve one spouse's separate property.
(See In re Marriage of Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 497, 501.) However, she argues the
court's refusal to rule on the reimbursement issue was not prejudicial because Joaquin had
no documentary proof that the parties used community funds (or his separate property
assets) to build the improvements on the property.
After examining the entire appellate record, we disagree with Maria's claim that
Joaquin failed to provide any supporting evidence, and determine the appropriate
disposition is to remand this matter to allow the court to rule on the reimbursement issue.
4 Generally, "[w]here community funds are used to make capital improvements to a
spouse's separate real property, the community is entitled to reimbursement or a pro tanto
interest . . . ." (In re Marriage of Allen, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 501; accord, In re
Marriage of Sherman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 795, 800.) Based on the parties' appellate
briefs and the record below, it is undisputed that the Mexican property is Maria's separate
property and title is in her name alone. However, it is also undisputed that capital
improvements were made to the property during the marriage and Joaquin was the
primary source of income during the marriage.
Maria contends that a spouse seeking reimbursement has the burden to show the
source and amount of the funds and asks this court to review the evidence to determine
that Joaquin did not meet this burden at the hearing. However, this factual analysis is for
the trial court in the first instance, and not the appellate court. (See Bono v. Clark (2002)
103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1421.) The trial court explicitly declined to reach this issue and
thus did not determine whether Joaquin met his proof burden. Although the court could
have found that Joaquin did not present sufficient evidence supporting his claim, it was
not compelled to reach this conclusion. Even if Joaquin did not have receipts showing
the precise amount or source of the funds used to improve the Mexican property, the
court could credit and rely on the parties' testimony as well as its evaluation of the parties'
financial situation over the course of the marriage to determine whether Joaquin
established that at least some of the improvements were funded through community
contributions. Although the court would have had a reasonable basis to determine that
5 Joaquin did or did not meet his burden, the court did not decide this issue. Thus, there
was no factual determination for this court to review.
In remanding the matter, we are sympathetic to the plight of busy trial judges who
are often required to make rulings based on incomplete and unclear assertions made by
parties who are not represented by legal counsel. Unlike the trial judge, we have the
benefit of written briefs submitted by counsel who have clarified issues left ambiguous in
the proceedings below. With this clarity, we are satisfied that Joaquin sufficiently raised
the reimbursement issue, and that the court declined to reach the issue based on the
mistaken belief that the parties were disputing ownership of the property. The record
reflects that the parties agreed the Mexican property was Maria's separate property and
were not intending to suggest that there was a dispute over ownership of the property as
between the parties. Thus, the court should have ruled on the reimbursement issue.2
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed in all respects, except the matter is remanded solely for the
court to rule on Joaquin's request for reimbursement/credit for alleged separate or
2 A party who shows community funds were spent on improving a separate property asset may also be entitled to a credit reflecting a pro tanto increase in the value of the property. (See In re Marriage of Allen, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 501.) However, in this case, Joaquin sought only reimbursement/credit for the expenses, and did not seek a determination that he owns a portion of Maria's separate property asset or a determination that he is entitled to an amount reflecting the increased value of the property. Thus, any such claim is waived for purposes of the remanded proceedings. (See In re Marriage of Wolfe (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 962, 973.) 6 community expenses spent to improve Maria's separate property located in Mexico. The
parties to bear their own costs on appeal.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.