Lindemann v. Lindemann

David Lindemann (defendant) and Kimi Lindemann (plaintiff) divorced in 1982. Shortly after, David started David’s Auto Body (DAB), an auto-repair business. David and Kimi began cohabitating again in 1985 but never remarried. David and Kimi cohabitated in a quasi-marital relationship for 10 years, during which David worked full-time at DAB and DAB increased in value from less than $10,000 to approximately $219,000. David made no effort to segregate the income attributable to David’s personal efforts from the income, if any, due to outside forces or DAB’s inherent qualities. David did not earn a salary until DAB was incorporated in 1993, but David occasionally drew checks on DAB to pay community expenses. In 1995, Kimi petitioned for an equitable division of community property, including DAB’s increase in value. At trial, David testified that he worked 65 hours per week and that DAB would have failed but for his personal efforts. The trial court awarded Kimi one-half of DAB’s increase in value as a reimbursement award, holding that DAB’s increased value was community property because DAB increased in value solely due to David’s personal efforts. David appealed, arguing that (1) Kimi failed to prove DAB’s increase in value was due to his personal efforts and (2) because David also labored to benefit the community, the labor David devoted to DAB should be classified as separate property.