Court of Appeal of California
285 Cal. Rptr. 479 (1991)
William (plaintiff) and Phyllis Czapar (defendant) were married when, together, they started a plastic extruding company called Anaheim Custom Extruders (ACE). In 1984, William filed for divorce. In the course of the divorce proceedings, William and Phyllis agreed that ACE was community property but disagreed as to the value of ACE. The trial court awarded ownership of ACE to William and calculated the cash value of the business as $494,058, based upon a market value of $644,058 but less the amount of $150,000. This $150,000 was the value assigned by the trial court to a theoretical covenant not to compete that William would likely have been required to enter into should he have sold ACE for its cash value. No evidence was provided that William planned to sell ACE for any purpose in the foreseeable future. Phyllis appealed the trial court's ruling.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wallin, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.