How we check our own work
Any tool can print a statute number next to a figure. The harder question is whether the number is right, and whether anyone has actually checked the law it cites. We do both — our California apportionment reproduces published appellate decisions to the cent, and every citation in the product carries the grade it has earned on our verification program.
The figures below are computed live, in your browser, by the same engine that runs the estimates — not copied from a screenshot. If our engine ever stopped matching these decisions, this page would say so.
In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426
California Court of Appeal, First District
Appreciation before the marriage belongs entirely to the separate estate, added as its own line rather than changing the percentage. The opinion prints its own computation table, and our figures close against it exactly.
| Figure | The court printed | SeeYourSplit computes | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community percentage | 24.02% | 24.02% | match |
| Community share of the home | $37,423.50 | $37,423.50 | match — to the cent |
| Separate share of the home | $131,931.50 | $131,931.50 | match — to the cent |
| Both shares add up to the equity The two interests must total the home’s equity exactly, in cents — the complement rule makes this an identity, not a hope. | $169,355.00 | $169,355.00 | closes |
| The figure the court rejected The percentage-of-today’s-value shortcut (24.02% × $182,500). It looks equivalent, and is only when value at marriage equals the purchase price; here it overstates the community by $6,413. | $43,836.50 | $37,423.50 | avoided |
In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366
Supreme Court of California
Only principal payments count — never interest, taxes or insurance — and the denominator is the original purchase price. The case the rule is named after.
| Figure | The court printed | SeeYourSplit computes | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community percentage | 10.57% | 10.57% | match |
| Community share of the home | $16,911.29 | $16,911.29 | match — to the cent |
| Separate share of the home | $109,901.16 | $109,901.16 | match — to the cent |
| Both shares add up to the equity The two interests must total the home’s equity exactly, in cents — the complement rule makes this an identity, not a hope. | $126,812.45 | $126,812.45 | closes |
| The figure the court rejected The equity-ratio method (community principal over TOTAL principal paid) the Supreme Court called error. | $32,367.86 | $16,911.29 | avoided |
In re Marriage of Mohler (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 788
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two
The community percentage stops growing at separation, but the community shares in appreciation through trial. The trial court was reversed for the opposite.
| Figure | The court printed | SeeYourSplit computes | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community percentage | 33.66% | 33.66% | match |
| Community share of the home | $172,684.00 | $172,684.00 | match — to the cent |
| Separate share of the home | $298,355.00 | $298,355.00 | match — to the cent |
| Both shares add up to the equity The two interests must total the home’s equity exactly, in cents — the complement rule makes this an identity, not a hope. | $471,039.00 | $471,039.00 | closes |
| The figure the court rejected The reversed trial-court figure: post-separation payments folded into the community share, inflating 33.66% to 64.9%. | $332,944.00 | $172,684.00 | avoided |
In re Marriage of Frick (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 997 (opinion figures read from the Caselaw Access Project static archive, 2026-08-05)
California Court of Appeal, Second District
The same mechanics on a large commercial property — and the opinion whose printed arithmetic contains a $1 slip from multiplying both appreciation shares independently. Complement arithmetic reproduces the printed separate-side figures exactly and lands the reconciling dollar on the community side.
| Figure | The court printed | SeeYourSplit computes | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community percentage | 43.54% | 43.54% | match |
| Community share of the home | $613,121.00 | $613,121.00 | match — to the cent |
| Separate share of the home | $1,118,720.00 | $1,118,720.00 | match — to the cent |
| Both shares add up to the equity The two interests must total the home’s equity exactly, in cents — the complement rule makes this an identity, not a hope. | $1,731,841.00 | $1,731,841.00 | closes |
| The figure the court rejected The opinion’s printed community interest, $613,120 — its own appreciation shares fail to foot by $1; the complement rule makes that class of error impossible. | $613,120.00 | $613,121.00 | avoided |
What every other citation is graded
Reproducing a decision is the strongest check there is, and it only applies to California home apportionment. Everything else carries one of these, shown next to the figure it supports:
| Grade | What it means | Where |
|---|---|---|
| ✓✓ Matches the published decision | Our calculation reproduces the figures printed in the court’s own published opinion, to the cent. This is the strongest check available. | 3 decisions |
| ✓ Checked against the official source | We read this against the official statute text or the court’s own opinion, rather than a summary of it. | 14 provisions |
| in review Researched — independent check in progress | Sourced from multiple references and cross-checked, but not yet confirmed in a professional citator. Statutes are sometimes renumbered or amended in ways general research misses. Confirm before relying on the citation itself. | 150 citations |
The verification program
Verification is a discipline here, not a one-time claim. Grades upgrade the moment each independent check lands — here is what that discipline looks like in practice:
- 150 citations across 50 states are assembled from multiple legal sources and cross-checked against each other; 10 have since been read against primary authority, and the rest are queued for professional-citator confirmation — because statutes get renumbered in ways casual research misses, and we treat that as our problem to catch, not yours.
- Where a state’s rule comes from court decisions rather than a statute (20 points today), we say “common law” until we have confirmed which case is controlling — we cite what we can stand behind, and nothing else.
- 11 states were long shown as ranges while their equal-split presumptions awaited verification. On Aug 5, 2026 we checked each against primary authority — the statute read from the official legislature site, or the controlling opinion itself. 8 now show a starting point estimate, each citing the exact statutory or case-law language on the result. 3 keep the range (Hawaii, Michigan, North Dakota) — not out of caution, but because we verified their law has no equal-split presumption. The range is the honest answer there.
- Even page numbers are held to the standard: one decision (Mohler) is cited without its printed reporter page because we verified the opinion from the court’s own PDF and will add the page reference once independently confirmed.