Bifurcated Trial in Divorce Cases

Disputed issues in divorce cases must be resolved either through trial or settlement.  Ordinarily, a case that has not settled must be decided in a single trial of all issues.  However, Rule 5.175 of the Rules of Court allows the court to bifurcate (or separate) one or more issues for a separate, bifurcated trial before the remaining issues in the case.  

Particularly in complex cases, and in light of the Superior Court’s increased docket congestion, bifurcation may be a more efficient means of moving a case toward resolution, by resolving pivotal issues and simplifying the case.  Marriage of Wolfe (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 889.  Often, the parties will have reached an impasse on important issues, which will need to be decided before the parties can negotiate a settlement of the remaining issues.

The realities of modern trial practice also make bifurcated trials appealing.  Trial judges cannot readily devote the time necessary for full trials on all disputed issues, which can take days, and instead can better manage the trials of cases one issue at a time.  Rule 5.175(c) identifies specific examples of issues that may be appropriate to try separately in a bifurcated trial: (1) the date of separation; (2) characterization of assets as community or separate property; (3) valuation of assets; and (4) the extent to which a prenuptial agreement may be enforceable.

Bifurcation is also used as the procedure for terminating the marriage before the court has decided the other issues regarding property and other issues.  Section 2337 of the Family Code expressly provides for this type of “status-only” judgment upon a noticed motion of either party.  Such a motion should show that the termination of the marriage would be in the parties’ best interests and would promote settlement, and that the trial of the remaining issues would be protracted.  Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786.  

The other party may oppose a status-only judgment on the grounds of prejudice.  If a separate trial would make the case more complicated, the other party may object on this basis.  Further, a party may object to a status-only judgment if it would prematurely deprive that party of the protections afforded by marriage.

In such an event, the court may impose various conditions on granting a severance of the issue of marital status.  Section 2337(c) provides for the following conditions to be placed on the bifurcation for a status-only judgment (which are to be binding on the moving party’s estate):

(1) Indemnification from taxes, reassessments, interest and penalties that might be owed upon community property division as a result of the status-only judgment;

(2) Maintenance of health insurance or, if not available, indemnification for the loss thereof; and

(3) Indemnification from any loss of a probate homestead in the residence in which the opposing party resides, or a probate family allowance as the surviving spouse, or any rights with respect to a retirement account, pension plan or Social Security benefits.

Under section 2337(c), the court can order that one-half, or all upon a showing of good cause, of the community interest in an Individual Retirement Account or annuity (“IRA”) be transferred to the opposing party, in order to preserve the ability of that party to defer the IRA’s distribution until retirement.

Further, section 2337(c) provides that, upon a showing that circumstances exist that would place a substantial burden on enforcement of community property rights if the moving party dies before division (such as the need for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) on a 401(k) retirement account), the court may require that the moving party post a surety bond or a security interest by QDRO from the moving party’s share of the 401(k) account.

Section 2337(d) provides that, prior to or simultaneously with the entry of a status-only judgment, the moving party’s retirement or pension plan shall be joined as a party, with an order disposing of such retirement or pension benefits or preserving the non-employee’s benefit rights.