# In Re Marriage of Hargrave

> California Court of Appeal · January 2, 1985 · 163 Cal. App. 3d 346

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724771

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re the Marriage of MARYEMMA H. and CHARLES MILTON HARGRAVE. MARYEMMA H. HARGRAVE, Appellant, v. CHARLES MILTON HARGRAVE, Respondent
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** January 2, 1985
- **Citations:** 163 Cal. App. 3d 346; 209 Cal. Rptr. 764; 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1496
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hanson
- **Judges:** Dalsimer, Hanson
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724771

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “[t]he type of service offered by husband through Charles Har-grave Associates is closely akin to the type of services offered by accountants, lawyers, physicians, and other professionals.”
- stating "[t]he type of service offered by husband through Charles Hargrave Associates is closely akin to the type of services offered by accountants, lawyers, physicians, and other professionals."

## Opinion text

HANSON (Thaxton), J.
I concur with the majority opinion on the resolution of two of the issues presented on appeal but respectfully dissent as to the other two.
First, I agree with the majority opinion that there was substantial evidence in support of, and that there was no abuse of discretion in, the valuation of the family residence.
Second, I disagree with the majority opinion that there was no substantial evidence to support the referee’s valuation of professional goodwill and that he should have required the parties to furnish additional evidence or should have appointed his own expert. The discretion to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the evidence submitted by the contesting parties on that issue is vested in the referee. Contrary to the majority’s opinion, Evidence Code section 460 does not mandate that the referee should have obtained more expert testimony bearing on this issue. Section 460 provides that the court “may,” (not “shall”) appoint such expert witnesses.
Third, I agree with the majority opinion that the issue concerning the husband’s claimed credit for the debt owed by the business to his (hus-
*358 band’s) separate property pension plan (established after the parties separated) should be remanded for reevaluation in accordance with In re Marriage of Bamert (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 413 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 616 ] and In re Marriage oflmperato (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 432 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 590 ],
Fourth, I disagree with the majority opinion’s finding that the referee abused his discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.
In sum, I would affirm all findings except that issue pertaining to the amount of husband’s claim in respect to his pension plan. I would remand solely for redetermination of that issue with directions to follow the guidelines in Bamert and Imperato.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724771. Public record. Not legal advice.