- 57 -
agreement. Surely, a reasonable party in an adversarial
proceeding would have pursued collection of the "settlement" once
the estate recovered the coins. We hold that the State court
action was nonadversarial.
We also are unpersuaded that the State court actually passed
upon the merits of Ms. Trompeter's claim, or that the claim would
have been allowed if examined on its merits. Mr. Lodgen's
conjecture that coins in which Ms. Trompeter had a community
interest were not disclosed to her during the divorce proceeding
was specious. He relied inappropriately on unsubstantiated
information acquired from Superior and Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Lodgen
failed to take into account a second set of coins disclosed in
the divorce settlement negotiations. Mr. Lodgen failed to
recognize the relevant time period for compiling the decedent's
coin holdings.12 We sustain respondent's determination on this
issue.
12 Ken Lodgen included all coins purchased before June 22,
1987, as coins that possibly were undisclosed by the decedent.
Under Cal. Civ. Code sec. 5118 (1983), which was in effect at the
time, "The earnings and accumulations of a spouse * * * while
living separate and apart from the other spouse, are the separate
property of the spouse". When we exclude the coins that were
acquired after the decedent and Sylvia Trompeter separated on
Aug. 8, 1984, and the coins without a proven purchase date, we
are unpersuaded that any of the decedent's coins in which Ms.
Trompeter had a community property interest were excluded from
Barry Stuppler's combined appraisal statements.
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011