Doherty

Doherty v. Doherty

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 4th 895·126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 2002No. B156044California1,365 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

*897 Opinion

During wife and husband’s marriage, wife’s employer pays a portion of the couple’s mortgage directly to the lender. Here we conclude there is no community interest in this mortgage subsidy after wife and husband separate.

Judith J. Doherty appeals an order of the family law court that characterizes an employment-related mortgage subsidy as community property, subject to division. We dismiss the appeal but issue a peremptory writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its November 20, 2001, order, and enter a different order finding there is no community interest in the mortgage subsidy that is received after separation of the parties.

Facts

Judith J. and Dennis G. Doherty married in 1988 and resided in New York, where Judith was employed by the Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak). 1 In 1997, Kodak transferred Judith to Southern California to work in its professional motion imaging division in Hollywood. Kodak offered relocation benefits to Judith to assist her in obtaining housing in Southern California. The relocation housing benefits included a cash allowance payable every four weeks over a 20-year period, or alternatively, a “mortgage buydown” or subsidy…

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.