California Family Code § 2603: Community Estate Personal Injury Damages

Plain-Language Summary

California Family Code § 2603 addresses how certain **damages recovered for personal injuries** during a marriage are divided upon divorce. Typically, any asset or debt acquired during marriage is community property and would be split equally between spouses in a divorce. However, section 2603 creates a special rule for *personal injury damages* obtained during the marriage.

Under this provision, if one spouse receives money for a personal injury (for example, from a lawsuit or insurance settlement) and the cause of action arose during the marriage, that money is initially considered part of the community property. But unlike other community assets, these “community estate personal injury damages” are **generally awarded to the injured spouse** when the community property is divided. The idea is to prevent the uninjured spouse from getting a windfall from the other’s personal injury compensation. The law recognizes that personal injury awards (especially for pain, suffering, or disfigurement) are personal to the injured party.

Family Code § 2603(b) says the injured spouse will receive all of these damages unless dividing them differently is necessary for fairness (“in the interests of justice”). Even if a court decides to give some of the injury award to the other spouse (for example, if the couple’s economic situation makes it equitable to share a portion), the injured spouse **must receive at least 50%** of those damages. In deciding if an alternative split is justified, the court will consider factors like each spouse’s financial needs and circumstances and how much time has passed since the injury or when the money was recovered. This ensures the division is fair, especially if the injury money was obtained long before the divorce or has been integrated into the couple’s finances.

It’s important to note that this rule only applies to personal injury recoveries that are **community property**. If the cause of action for the injury arose after the spouses were living separate (or after a divorce/legal separation was already final), then the damages are considered the injured person’s separate property under Family Code § 781 and wouldn’t be subject to division at all. Also, if the injury award was **commingled** with other community funds to the point it can’t be traced (for example, deposited into a joint account and mixed with regular savings), then it may lose its special status and be treated like general community property to be split equally.

Real-World Examples

Credit Card Debt for Household Expenses: Suppose during the marriage one spouse accumulates $10,000 in credit card charges for groceries, home supplies, and family necessities. Because this debt was incurred during marriage for the benefit of the community, it is a **community debt**. Upon divorce, both spouses would typically share responsibility for this $10,000, effectively splitting it (e.g. each might be assigned $5,000).
Credit Card Debt for Personal Pursuits or Misconduct: Now consider a spouse who secretly spent $10,000 on gambling or an unrelated personal hobby during the marriage. A debt incurred during marriage is presumed to be a community obligation, but if it was **not incurred for the benefit of the community**, a court can assign that debt solely to the spouse who incurred it. For instance, California Family Code § 2625 allows the judge to allocate a gambling debt entirely to the responsible spouse, rather than dividing it equally. (In one case, a husband’s gambling losses on credit cards during marriage were assigned entirely to him, not split with the wife.)
Home Mortgage Loan: Imagine a couple bought a house together during the marriage and took out a mortgage in both their names. That mortgage is a community debt because it was incurred during marriage to purchase a community asset (the family home). In a divorce, typically the **mortgage balance and the home equity are divided** as part of the property division. This could mean selling the house and splitting the remaining proceeds after paying off the loan, or one spouse keeping the house (and the mortgage) but giving the other spouse assets or payments equal to their share of the equity. The key point is that a mortgage for a marital home is generally treated as a joint obligation to be handled in a way that each spouse bears an equal portion, absent other agreements.
Personal Loan or Medical Debt: If the spouses took out a $20,000 personal loan during the marriage to pay for a family car or medical bills, that loan is a community debt and both will share responsibility after divorce. However, if one spouse alone took out a loan to finance something like an extramarital trip or a solely personal expense, a court might decide that debt wasn’t for the community’s benefit and assign it to that spouse alone (similar to the gambling debt example above). Courts have discretion to ensure debts not benefiting the couple do not unfairly burden the other spouse.
Personal Injury Settlement Example: During the marriage, one spouse is injured in a car accident and receives a $100,000 settlement for pain, suffering, and lost wages. Under California law, that settlement is community property because the cause of action arose during the marriage. However, Family Code § 2603 will apply to this money. In a divorce, the injured spouse will likely be awarded the **majority or all of the $100,000**. For example, a court might award the entire $100,000 to the injured spouse, recognizing that the funds compensate for that spouse’s personal injuries and future needs resulting from the injury. The other spouse might receive little or none of that money, unless the court finds that fairness demands sharing a portion of it. Even then, the injured spouse must get at least half (so at minimum $50,000 in this example). If the accident had occurred **after the spouses separated**, then the settlement would be the injured spouse’s separate property and the other spouse would have no claim to it.

Notable California Appellate Decisions Interpreting § 2603

In re Marriage of Devlin (1982): In this case, a husband received approximately $175,000 from a personal injury settlement during the marriage, which the couple used to purchase a family home and other assets. Upon divorce, the trial court awarded the **bulk of the property to the husband**, tracing it all back to his injury compensation. The wife was only given a small portion of the assets. The California Court of Appeal upheld this result, affirming that personal injury proceeds (and assets acquired with those proceeds) can be allocated predominantly to the injured spouse under the law’s special division rules. The fact that the money had been spent on community property (like the home) did not defeat the husband’s claim – as long as those assets were **traceable** to the injury award, they fell under the statute’s protection for the injured spouse.
In re Marriage of Morris (1983): Here, a wife was injured during the marriage (thrown from a horse) and received about $42,000 in a settlement. The trial court awarded **100% of that settlement to the wife**, while dividing the couple’s other community property equally. The husband argued on appeal that this result was unfair and that the personal injury money should be split or at least offset by giving him more of the other assets. The Court of Appeal disagreed and **confirmed that Family Code § 2603 (then Civil Code § 4800(c)) creates an exception to the 50/50 division rule**. In other words, it’s permissible for the injured spouse to receive all of the personal injury damages without an equalizing payment to the other spouse. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting the legislature’s intent was to prioritize the injured spouse’s recovery over an equal division.
In re Marriage of Briltz (1983): This case extended the special treatment of personal injury recoveries to certain **disability benefits**. The husband in Briltz was receiving disability payments for injuries suffered, and the question was whether those payments should be treated like personal injury damages. The court concluded that disability benefits meant to compensate for personal injury (for example, for lost earning capacity or suffering due to the injury) are akin to personal injury damages. Therefore, such benefits were subject to the same rule – they were awarded largely to the injured spouse, not split equally as ordinary income might be. This interpretation ensures that compensation for an injury (even if paid out as disability insurance or similar) is protected for the injured party under § 2603.
In re Marriage of Jackson (1989): In Jackson, the wife (Michelle) was injured by an uninsured motorist during the marriage. She received a settlement payment from her own insurance’s uninsured motorist coverage, which she used to buy a house and a car. In the divorce, the trial court characterized those insurance proceeds as “community estate personal injury damages” – even though the money came from an insurance policy, it was meant to compensate her injury caused by a third party. The court awarded the **entire remaining insurance money and the assets bought with it to the wife as her separate property**. The husband appealed, arguing that since part of the claim against the at-fault driver was still pending at the time, perhaps the insurance money shouldn’t count as personal injury damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the uninsured motorist settlement was indeed subject to § 2603. The outcome meant the wife kept those funds and purchases, consistent with the rule that an injured spouse should get at least one-half – and up to all – of the personal injury recovery.
In re Marriage of Pinto (1972): Although decided before the current Family Code, this case addressed a related issue: what happens if a personal injury claim is still unresolved at the time of divorce? In Pinto, the court held that an **unliquidated personal injury cause of action is not “community estate personal injury damages”** under the statute’s predecessor. In other words, if the injured spouse only has a pending lawsuit or claim (with no settlement or judgment yet received), that claim isn’t divided as an asset in the divorce under the special rule. Only after the claim is resolved and money is received would the compensation become divisible – and then § 2603’s allocation to the injured spouse would apply. This principle ensures that courts divide actual recoveries, not speculative claims.

Full Text of Family Code § 2603

(a) “Community estate personal injury damages” as used in this section means all money or other property received or to be received by a person in satisfaction of a judgment for damages for the person’s personal injuries or pursuant to an agreement for the settlement or compromise of a claim for the damages, if the cause of action for the damages arose during the marriage but is not separate property as described in Section 781, unless the money or other property has been commingled with other assets of the community estate.

(b) Community estate personal injury damages shall be assigned to the party who suffered the injuries unless the court, after taking into account the economic condition and needs of each party, the time that has elapsed since the recovery of the damages or the accrual of the cause of action, and all other facts of the case, determines that the interests of justice require another disposition. In such a case, the community estate personal injury damages shall be assigned to the respective parties in such proportions as the court determines to be just, except that at least one-half of the damages shall be assigned to the party who suffered the injuries.

Nothing on this page should be considered legal advice. This is simply a summary of information found on the internet. Use at your own risk. This information has not been evaluated by an attorney, and it may be incorrect or obsolete due to changes in the law.