In Re Marriage of Duncan

Good Law
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 533·2001 Daily Journal DAR 7217·90 Cal. App. 4th 617·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5887
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 11, 2001D033482California6,285 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kremer, J.

Carol C. and William H. Duncan, Jr., were married in February 1989 and separated in September 1994. During their marriage, Carol and William acquired the majority of shares in Duncan-Hurst Capital Management, Inc. (Duncan-Hurst), an investment advisory business managed and operated by William. In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found Duncan-Hurst was community property and applied the exception of Family Code section 2552, subdivision (b) to value the business as of the date of separation. Carol appeals this order, contending the court should have valued Duncan-Hurst as of the date of trial, using an apportionment formula. Carol further contends the court erred in denying her request for attorney fees under section 2030. William also appeals, contending the court used an incorrect method of calculating the value of Duncan-Hurst. We affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Before his marriage to Carol, William built a national reputation as a professional investment adviser over a 20-year period, managing pension plan monies for various companies. These companies, called plan sponsors, hire pension consultants to help them hire the right investment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.