1

Filed 11/8/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re Marriage of DALE MOTISKA 

and CAROLINE FORD.

DALE MOTISKA,

Appellant,

v.

CAROLINE FORD,

Respondent.

A166543

(Solano County Super. Ct.

No. FFL122184)

This interlocutory appeal arises from a marital dissolution proceeding 

involving appellant Dale Motiska and respondent Caroline Ford, who 

married in January 2001 and separated in 2011. Motiska challenges a trial 

court order determining he did not have a reimbursement claim under 

Family Code1 section 2640 based on an asserted contribution of separate 

property to a corporation that the court found was a community asset.2 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

2 Section 2640, subdivision (b) states in part: “In the division of the 

community estate under this division, unless a party has made a written 

waiver of the right to reimbursement or has signed a writing that has the 

effect of a waiver, the party shall be reimbursed for the party’s contributions 

to the acquisition of property of the community property estate to the extent 

the party traces the contributions to a separate property source.”
2

Motiska argues the court erred by declining to allow him to present evidence 

of his separate property contributions and by concluding he had no claim 

under the statute. 

We publish our opinion resolving this appeal because the principal 

question raised here—whether a spouse’s sale of property to the marital 

community for the nominal amount of $1 constitutes a de facto gift, 

triggering a right to contribution under section 2640—is a matter of first 

impression. We answer that question no. Finding no error, we affirm the 

challenged order.

I. BACKGROUND3

A. Neon Palm Nursery and Buxup Corporation

In 1983, Motiska began operating a nursery business called Neon Palm 

Nursery (Neon Palm) as a sole proprietorship. Prior to his January 2001 

marriage to Ford, Motiska was married to Cynthia Motiska (Cynthia).

4

Motiska and Cynthia divorced pursuant to a status-only judgment in 1999, 

but litigation pertaining to Neon Palm continued and was ongoing when 

Motiska and Ford married. As part of a mediated agreement in that 

litigation, Motiska was awarded Neon Palm as his sole property. This award 

was confirmed in an interspousal deed filed on April 3, 2002. 

In early 2001, shortly after his marriage to Ford, Motiska formed a

corporation called Buxup Corporation (Buxup) and began using the business 

3 As we discuss further below, prior to issuing the order that Motiska 

challenges in this appeal, the trial court held two trials on related issues and 

issued statements of decision. We derive our summary of the underlying 

facts in part from the court’s findings in those statements of decision. 

4 Because Cynthia Motiska shares a surname with appellant Dale

Motiska, we refer to her by her first name for clarity. We intend no 

disrespect. 
3

name Palm Island Nursery (or Palm Island Nursery Outlet); we will 

sometimes refer to the latter as Palm Island. Specifically, the court found 

that, in March 2001, Motiska filed a fictitious business name statement 

registering the name Palm Island Nursery, and that articles of incorporation 

for Buxup were filed by the Secretary of State on May 15, 2001. The court 

found that Palm Island began doing business on February 26, 2001, and that 

both Palm Island and Buxup “were created early in 2001 and began fully

operating by August 2001,” i.e., “within the first year of [Motiska’s] marriage 

to [Ford].”5

The court found that Neon Palm, the preexisting sole proprietorship, 

ceased doing business in December 2003 and was sold to Buxup for $1. 

Based on conflicting evidence as to whether the sale occurred in 2001 or 2003

(including discrepancies within Motiska’s own testimony, as well as 

inconsistent corporate minutes), the court found the sale was in 2003, after 

Motiska’s ownership of Neon Palm had been confirmed in the litigation with 

his previous wife.

6

5 Motiska states in his appellate brief that Palm Island was “merely a 

dba of Buxup,” while Ford states Palm Island was formed as a business and 

“later incorporated into” Buxup. In its statements of decision, the trial court 

referred to the corporation at one point as “Buxup Corporation DBA Palm 

Island Nursery,” while at times discussing Palm Island and Buxup 

separately. For purposes of this appeal, these varying descriptions of the 

relationship between Palm Island and Buxup are not material. As we shall 

discuss, the important question resolved by the trial court was the 

relationship between Neon Palm (Motiska’s preexisting sole proprietorship) 

and Buxup (the later-formed corporation).

6 In his appellate briefing, Motiska states he does not dispute that 

Neon Palm was sold to Buxup for $1. He asserts in a one-sentence footnote, 

however, that there is no evidence he “was actually paid the dollar for the 

sale.” We decline to address this undeveloped point or to question the trial 

court findings and underlying evidence that the sale occurred.
4

In the present dissolution matter, Motiska initially took the position 

that Neon Palm and Buxup were the same nursery business, and that Buxup 

resulted from the incorporation of that business. In briefing in the trial 

court, Motiska stated both the Neon Palm and Palm Island names were used 

for a period of time, with different types of purchases invoiced using the 

different names. But after conducting a trial on the question, the court 

rejected Motiska’s contention Buxup was a continuation of Neon Palm 

resulting from incorporation. 

The court stated Motiska’s formation of Buxup and Palm Island in 2001 

was part of an “attempt to ‘incorporate’ ” Neon Palm, but the court found that 

an incorporation of Neon Palm did not in fact occur and that Buxup was 

instead “a new and distinct business acquired during the marriage of”

Motiska and Ford, thus giving rise to a presumption that it was a community 

property asset. In summarizing these events, the court stated that, “[j]ust 

prior to and early in the marriage to Ms. Ford, Mr. Motiska began the process 

of ‘incorporating’ ” Neon Palm, after “a crane accident that revealed to Mr. 

Motiska the liability risks involved as an owner of a sole proprietorship.” The 

court also noted that, at that time, the business “was subject to litigation 

between Mr. Motiska and his previous wife.” 

After considering the evidence presented at trial, the court rejected the 

argument that Neon Palm was incorporated, finding instead that Neon Palm 

was purchased by Buxup in 2003. The court concluded in part: “Neon Palm 

Nursery was an asset that was subject of continued litigation during the time 

that Buxup Corporation and Palm Island Nursery were created. Neon Palm 

Nursery did not go through the process of incorporation, and it was only after 

the nursery was confirmed to Mr. Motiska as his separate property that 

Buxup Corporation was able to purchase it. Thus, rather than having been 
5

incorporated, Neon Palm Nursery was acquired by Buxup Corporation, a 

separate business established during the marriage.”

B. Trial Court Proceedings

In the present dissolution matter involving Motiska and Ford, the court 

conducted extensive proceedings pertaining to the characterization of Buxup 

as community property or separate property and related claims pertaining to 

the business. 

1. The 2018 Stipulation

In April 2018, the parties entered a stipulation (which the trial court 

approved as an order) about how these and other matters would be tried, 

entitled “stipulation regarding trial issues and reserved issues.” The 

stipulation states there first will be a trial on “[c]haracterization (only)”; 

although the language as to what property would be characterized is crossed 

out, the parties’ trial court briefing reflects they understood the property at 

issue was Buxup. 

The stipulation then states: “The Court specifically reserves 

jurisdiction over the following issues, inter alia, which will be reserved to a 

trial on reserved issues.” On the list of reserved issues are several relating to 

“the business,” including (1) “In the event that the Court finds that the 

business is presumptively community property, any rebuttal of the 

community property presumption via tracing of the acquisition of the 

business to [Motiska’s] separate property,” and (2) “Any Family Code 

section 2640 claims related to the business.” 

2. The 2019 Trial and the January 2020 Statement of Decision

The court first held a trial addressing whether the creation of Buxup 

was an acquisition during marriage that would give rise to a presumption 
6

that it was community property under section 760.7 The trial occurred over 

five days between February and December 2019, and the court issued a 

statement of decision on January 16, 2020. As discussed, the court found 

Buxup was a business acquired during the marriage, giving rise to the 

presumption it was a community property asset. The court found Neon Palm 

was not incorporated and was instead purchased by Buxup in 2003. 

3. The 2021 Trial and Statement of Decision 

The court held another trial over three days in February and 

March 2021, again focused on Buxup. In a statement of decision issued on 

May 28, 2021, the court noted that, based on the findings it made after the 

previous trial, Buxup “is a presumptive community property business.” The 

second trial was held to give Motiska an opportunity to rebut that 

presumption. The court found Motiska failed to meet his burden of proof and 

did not rebut the presumption.8 

Specifically, the statement of decision reflects that Motiska failed to 

show separate property funds were used to provide the initial funding for 

Buxup. The court found Motiska did not keep adequate records to show “the 

funds used to acquire Palm Island Nursery and Buxup Corp. came 

exclusively from separate property funds.” The court concluded that, because 

Motiska failed to meet his burden to rebut the community property 

7 Section 760 states: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, all 

property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person 

during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.” 

8 As the trial court noted, the presumption that property acquired by a 

spouse during marriage is community property may be rebutted by tracing 

the marital acquisition to a separate property source. (In re Marriage of Valli

(2014) 58 Cal.4th 1396, 1400.) “A spouse’s claim that property acquired 

during a marriage is separate property must be proven by a preponderance of 

the evidence.” (Ibid.)
7

presumption, “Buxup Corporation and DBA Palm Island Nursery remain 

community property.”9

4. Subsequent Proceedings and the Court’s October 27, 2022 

Order

The parties reconvened on January 6, 2022, for a trial on remaining 

issues. During the January 6 trial session and in subsequent briefing and 

oral argument, the parties disputed whether Motiska had a viable claim for 

reimbursement under section 2640 for separate property contributions to 

Buxup. Ford contended the court’s prior rulings had resolved all separate 

property claims to the business. Motiska argued his claim for reimbursement 

under section 2640 was a separate issue that had not been adjudicated and 

that could only arise after the court had determined Buxup was community 

property.

The court concluded Motiska did not have a claim for reimbursement 

under section 2640, because the asserted claim was based on Motiska’s

purported contribution of Neon Palm to Buxup, and the court had previously 

determined Motiska sold Neon Palm to Buxup for $1. At a hearing in 

July 2022, the court summarized its conclusion, stating in part: “[I]n my 

view, Neon Palm includes the dustpan, the crane, the truck, et cetera. And 

he made a decision to sell it for a dollar. And you can writ this, or you can do

whatever you need to do with this. [¶] . . . [¶] But to me, Neon Palm was sold. 

It was a sale. It was a sale. He received. He set the value himself. There 

was no undue influence. There was no interference by Miss Ford. He set the 

value at a dollar. He sold it for a dollar. He received the dollar. It is a sale. 

It is done.”

9 In his appellate briefing, Motiska states he does not dispute, “for 

purposes of this appeal,” the trial court’s finding that Buxup is community 

property. 
8

On October 27, 2022, the court issued a written order. In the order, the 

court reaffirmed its previous finding that Motiska sold Neon Palm to Buxup 

for $1. The court ruled Motiska did not have a section 2640 claim and would 

not be allowed to present evidence to substantiate such a claim if it related to 

Neon Palm. 

At Motiska’s request, the trial court certified there was probable cause 

to appeal the October 27, 2022 order, and this court granted Motiska’s motion 

to appeal the order. (§ 2025; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.392.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Motiska contends his sale of Neon Palm (his separate property sole 

proprietorship) to Buxup (a community property corporation) was a 

contribution to the acquisition of a community asset within the meaning of 

section 2640, triggering a right to reimbursement. He argues the court erred 

by ruling he had no reimbursement claim under the statute and by declining 

to allow him to present evidence to substantiate such a claim. 

As noted, section 2640, subdivision (b) provides in part: “In the division 

of the community estate under this division, unless a party has made a 

written waiver of the right to reimbursement or has signed a writing that has 

the effect of a waiver, the party shall be reimbursed for the party’s 

contributions to the acquisition of property of the community property estate to 

the extent the party traces the contributions to a separate property source.”10

10 Subdivision (a) of section 2640 defines the above italicized language: 

“ ‘Contributions to the acquisition of property,’ as used in this section, include 

downpayments, payments for improvements, and payments that reduce the 

principal of a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of the 

property but do not include payments of interest on the loan or payments 

made for maintenance, insurance, or taxation of the property.” The forms of 

reimbursable contributions listed in subdivision (a) of the statute are not 
9

(Italics added.) “This provision ‘creates a substantive right of reimbursement 

that can be relinquished only by an express written waiver by the 

contributing spouse. [Citation.] “In the absence of such a written waiver the 

donative intent of the contributing spouse does not bar reimbursement.

. . .” ’ ” (In re Marriage of Buie & Neighbors (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1170, 

1175.) 

There is no evidence Motiska made a written waiver of section 2640 

reimbursement rights. The issue presented is antecedent to that: whether 

his sale of Neon Palm to Buxup was a contribution triggering such a right. 

As a threshold matter, we think Motiska’s failure to raise this issue in May 

2021 in the form of an objection—factually and legally—constrains his ability 

to raise the issue now. In the May 2021 statement of decision, the trial court 

decided that Motiska had not shown that “the funds used to acquire Palm 

Island Nursery and Buxup Corp. came exclusively from separate property 

funds.” The court also reaffirmed its finding that Neon Palm was sold to 

Buxup for $1. If Motiska believed it to be the case that Neon Palm was not, 

in fact, acquired, but was donated, thereby making clear that later 

proceedings would be needed to further address the issue of tracing in the 

context of a reimbursement claim from Motiska, he needed to raise the issue

then. 

Motiska’s failure to raise his section 2640 issue in May 2021 means 

that, factually, we must imply all necessary adverse findings that will 

support a determination against him on the issue he failed to raise. Under 

Code of Civil Procedure section 634, “if [a] statement of decision does not 

exclusive; other contributions may be reimbursable as long as they 

contributed to equity acquisition or improvements and are not expressly 

excluded by the statute. (In re Marriage of Nicholson and Sparks (2002) 

104 Cal.App.4th 289, 296.)
10

resolve a controverted issue or is ambiguous, and the omission or ambiguity 

was brought to the attention of the trial court, ‘it shall not be inferred on 

appeal . . . that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to 

those facts or on that issue.’ ” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 

981; see In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133–1134.)

“The statutory statement of decision process following ‘ “the trial of a 

question of fact by the court” . . . [¶] . . . “is for the benefit of the court and the 

parties. To the court it gives an opportunity to place upon [the] record, in 

definite written form, its view of the facts and the law of the case, and to 

make the case easily reviewable on appeal by exhibiting the exact grounds 

upon which judgment rests. To the parties, it furnishes the means, in many 

instances, of having their cause reviewed without great expense.” ’ [Citation.] 

A proper statement of decision is thus essential to effective appellate review. 

‘Without a statement of decision, the judgment is effectively insulated from 

review by the substantial evidence rule,’ as we would have no means of 

ascertaining the trial court’s reasoning or determining whether its findings 

on disputed factual issues support the judgment as a matter of law.” 

(Thompson v. Asimos, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 981–982.) 

Ford argues that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s implied 

finding that the sale of Neon Palm to Buxup Corp fairly reflected its value to 

Motiska at the time of the sale. We agree, particularly since he may have 

had any number of reasons for making this sale as he did at the chosen price 

point. We know, for example, that Motiska’s choice of a $1 sale price was 

designed to avoid business transfer taxes. There could have been other 

reasons that we cannot know because the record on this point was not 

developed. But the bottom line is that low consideration does not necessarily 

mean there was no consideration. On this record, we are not persuaded the 
11

dollar amount Motiska chose provides a basis to treat the transaction as 

something other than a sale, as the court found it to be, a finding that, again, 

Motiska states he does not challenge.

Even were it necessary to go beyond the unchallenged factual finding 

that Motiska sold Neon Palm to Buxup for $1, we would sustain the trial 

court’s finding as a matter of law. We review de novo the court’s 

determination as to whether the sale was a contribution triggering a 

reimbursement right under section 2640. (See In re Marriage of G.C. & R.W.

(2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1, 23 [“Since the relevant facts are undisputed, and the 

issue on appeal turns on whether the trial court properly applied the law 

governing the characterization of assets upon dissolution, we apply the de 

novo standard of review.”].) Applying this standard, we hold the court 

correctly ruled Motiska’s sale of Neon Palm to Buxup—at the sale price of $1 

set by Motiska—was not a contribution to the acquisition of property of the 

community estate that would entitle him to reimbursement under 

section 2640. As a result, there was no need for the court to take additional

evidence as to the amount of the purported contribution.11

In our view, a spouse’s sale of property to the community (or, as here, to 

a business that is a community asset) differs from a freely given contribution

that is subject to reimbursement under section 2640. Beginning with the 

language of the statute, the phrase “contributions to the acquisition of 

property” in section 2640, subdivision (b)—both its plain meaning and in light 

11 Because we conclude Motiska had no section 2640 reimbursement 

claim (and therefore no right to present evidence in support of such a claim), 

we need not address the parties’ arguments as to whether prior proceedings 

addressed the section 2640 issue or provided Motiska an opportunity to 

litigate it. And because the court did not err, we need not consider the 

parties’ contentions about whether the asserted error was prejudicial. 
12

of the items identified as qualifying payments in section 2640, subdivision (a) 

(e.g., “downpayments” and “payments for improvements”)—suggests a 

voluntary transfer of funds or assets to benefit the community. In contrast, a 

sale of property (i.e., the exchange of property for consideration) is not 

commonly viewed as a contribution by the seller to the buyer. 

In reaching our conclusion, we also note that our Supreme Court, in a 

leading decision interpreting the scope of section 2640, emphasized that an 

important policy consideration in this context is the encouragement of 

contributions to benefit the community and protection of the expectations 

that arise from such contributions. (In re Marriage of Walrath (1998) 

17 Cal.4th 907, 919 (Walrath).) In Walrath, the court addressed the question 

whether a party’s right to reimbursement under section 2640 was “limited to 

the original community property to which the contribution was made” or 

could instead be traced to other community assets that were obtained when 

the original community asset was refinanced. (Walrath, at p. 913.) 

As one consideration supporting its conclusion that tracing to 

subsequently acquired community assets is permitted, the court stated this 

interpretation “is supported by important policy considerations. It 

encourages married persons to freely and without reservation contribute their 

separate property assets to benefit the community, and alleviates the need for 

spouses to negotiate with each other during marriage regarding continuing 

reimbursement rights. Under this interpretation, section 2640 protects the 

general expectations of most people in marriage, i.e., that spouses will be 

reimbursed for significant monetary contributions to the community should 

the community dissolve.” (Walrath, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 919, italics added; 

id. at p. 918 [“The effect of section 2640 was ‘to overturn a long line of cases 

which had held that absent an agreement to the contrary, separate property 
13

contributions to the community were deemed to be gifts to the community’ ”; 

legislative history “reveals a ‘legislative judgment that it would be fairer to 

the contributing party to allow separate property reimbursement upon 

dissolution.’ ”].) 

As a rule, and on this record, these considerations do not support 

treating a spouse’s sale of separate property to the community for a single 

dollar as a contribution triggering a reimbursement right under section 2640. 

A spouse who decides to sell property to the community is electing not to 

contribute the property “freely and without reservation” “to benefit the 

community.” (Walrath, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 919.) It also is not a “general 

expectation” (ibid.) of most spouses that if they sell separate property to the 

community, they will nevertheless receive additional reimbursement for the 

transferred property, over and above the sale price, if the community 

dissolves. There is no clear guidance on this point in the section 2640 case 

law to date. But we believe the most predictable rule, and the one that 

facilitates planning by prospective spouses contemplating whether to transfer 

separate property to a marital community, is not to allow second-guessing of 

whether a seller’s unilaterally chosen sale price amounts to a de facto gift. 

Motiska insists that his sale of Neon Palm to Buxup should be treated 

differently from other sales. He contends the $1 sale price he selected does 

not accurately reflect the value of Neon Palm, so the court should have 

disregarded the sale price, treated the transaction as being “akin to a gift to 

the community,” determined the actual value of Neon Palm, and awarded 

that amount to Motiska as reimbursement under section 2640. We are not 

persuaded that, in the absence of undue influence or other circumstantial 

evidence that a selected price should be treated as a sham, the value the 
14

parties placed on property in a sale should be subject to ad hoc

reexamination. 

For the reasons we have discussed, transfer of property by sale to the 

community is not the same as transfer of property by contribution to the 

community. The need to determine the amount or value of a spouse’s 

separate property contribution under section 2640—the exercise Motiska 

contends the court should have undertaken here—arises when the spouse has 

in fact made a contribution. (§ 2640, subd. (b); see, e.g., Walrath, supra, 

17 Cal.4th at p. 924 [reimbursement is based on amount of separate property 

contribution]; In re Marriage of Bonvino (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1432

[separate property contribution is measured by value of contribution at time 

it was made; community is entitled to any appreciation].) But when a spouse 

transfers property to the community by sale, the price establishes its value. 

This accords with established principles of contract law, where the sale 

price set by the parties to a transaction is generally honored as representing 

valid consideration. (See 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (11th ed. 2023) 

Contracts, § 205 [“[T]he consideration need not necessarily be useful, and 

there is no requirement of adequacy to make the contract enforceable in an 

action at law.”].) As the trial court emphasized, Motiska decided to sell Neon 

Palm to Buxup, and he decided to set the sale price at $1, without any 

involvement or interference by Ford or others. As noted above, he had taxdriven financial reasons for choosing $1, and years later, under different 

circumstances, we decline to permit him to disavow the validity of the sale 

and characterize the transaction as something other than what he claimed it 

was in making the transfer. We are particularly concerned with the linedrawing problems the rule proposed by Motiska would present. If a spouse 

who sells property to the community can later ignore the price he or she 
15

selected, then even a sale for a substantial price could be revisited based on a 

claim the price does not reflect the actual value of the property sold. In our 

view, the better rule in this context is to treat an otherwise valid sale as a 

completed transaction in which the selling spouse has already received 

reimbursement for transferring property to the community, rather than as a 

“contribution” potentially warranting additional reimbursement under 

section 2640 whenever there is a discrepancy between the sale price and the 

claimed value of the property. A sale for $1 may test that rule at its limit, 

but if the rule is discarded here we see no principled way of distinguishing 

between cases in which a sale price must be respected and cases in which it 

will be open to later reexamination. 

Motiska notes courts have in various contexts referred to $1 as a 

nominal amount (although that fact did not generally invalidate the claims or 

transactions at issue). (Schraier v. Schraier (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 587, 588–

590 [alimony award of $1 per month appropriately allowed trial court to 

retain jurisdiction to consider future modification requests]; Heritage Pacific 

Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 986, 1006–1007 

[statutory damages award of $1 established plaintiff was prevailing party for 

purposes of attorney fees]; Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (2015) 

237 Cal.App.4th 261, 277 [lease of school property for $1 as component of 

statutory “lease-leaseback” financing method].) Even if $1 is often considered 

a nominal amount, that general observation does not persuade us that the 

sale price selected by Motiska should be disregarded, or that he should 

receive additional reimbursement above that price. 

Motiska argues “[a] sale for a nominal amount is akin to a gift.” In 

support, he cites Bertelsen v. Bertelsen (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 479, 484, in 

which the court stated that a party acting as “attorney in fact” for another 
16

person lacked authority to make a gift of the principal’s property, and that a 

grant deed listing a price of $10 was also ineffective to convey title, because 

“a gift deed and a deed for a nominal sum are in effect the same.” Bertelsen

provides no basis to set aside Motiska’s sale of Neon Palm or to question the 

price he set. Unlike the attorney in fact in Bertelsen, Motiska by 2003 was 

the sole owner of Neon Palm and had full authority to sell it and to set the 

sale price. 

Finally, Motiska argues that the sale price was “not indicative of value” 

because it was a “related-party transaction,” and that factors other than the 

sale price must be considered to determine the “value” of his “contribution” to 

the community. We disagree. The authorities Motiska cites on these points

involve different circumstances. (See In re Estate of Spitly (1932) 

124 Cal.App. 642, 643, 645–646 [in computing inheritance tax, value of 

corporate securities held by estate must be measured by fair market value at 

decedent’s death rather than by later appraisal that arguably reflected 

inflated value due to “slimy foundation of false statements” and 

“manipulation of the stock market” by stock issuer]; Golden Day Schools, Inc.

v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1012, 1034, 1017–

1018 [conditions in contracts between nonprofit corporation and regulatory 

agency required that, when an expense charged by corporation was a relatedparty transaction, corporation had to “establish the transaction as ‘fair and 

reasonable and conducted at arm’s length’ ”]; 26 U.S.C. § 2512(b) [addressing 

valuation of gifts for purposes of gift tax “[w]here property is transferred for 

less than an adequate and full consideration”].)12 Because of the heightened 

12 See also Stroman v. Lynch (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 406, 408 (value of 

household furniture and furnishings in conversion action); People v. Grant

(2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 323, 329 (fair market value of stolen property to prove 
17

importance of objectively accurate asset values in such contexts as accounting 

and tax, it makes sense that courts are sometimes willing to second-guess 

subjectively reported values in some circumstances. But that is not what we 

are dealing with here. These cases do not persuade us that, in the present 

context, we should ignore the sale price Motiska selected.

III. DISPOSITION

The trial court’s October 27, 2022 order determining Motiska has no 

section 2640 claim pertaining to Neon Palm is affirmed. Ford shall recover 

her costs on appeal. 

STREETER, J. 

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.

HIRAMOTO, J.*

grand theft and burglary); In re Marriage of Hewitson (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 

874, 882, fn. 8 (general definition of fair market value).

* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.
In re Marriage of Motiska and Ford – A166543

Trial Court: Superior Court of California, County of Solano

Trial Judge: Hon. Dora M. Rios

Counsel: C. Athena Roussos; Law Offices of Michael L. Gums 

and Michael L. Gums, for Appellant.

Montagna Family Law and Stephen A. Montagna, for 

Respondent.