Cited by

3 ¶ 7 (App. 2010); ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

¶19 “[T]he superior court has broad discretion” in apportioning community property and debts, and this court “will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

An abuse of discretion occurs if the court “commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

We review the court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, 2 ¶ 13 (App. 2007), and will affirm the decision unless it is unsupported by record evidence or the court legally erred, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

The parties were on notice that a QDRO would be issued after the special master rendered his report, and the court expressly stated it “shall reserve jurisdiction to enter any QDRO(s) or other orders relating to the special master’s work.” ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (finding the court’s order adopting the special master’s report was not a final order of the court, because the superior court “contemplated the later preparation and entry of the [QDRO]”); ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2021) (“Although a special order made

¶ 12 (App. 2007) (citing cases).

¶ 13 (App. 3 CARROLL v. CARROLL Decision of the Court 2007).

¶ 14 (App. 2019) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2007)).

¶ 14 (App. 2019) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2007)).

DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶7 “In apportioning community property between the parties at dissolution, the superior court has broad discretion to achieve an equitable division, and we will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

¶ 13 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).

The family court has broad discretion to allocate community property, “and we will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

Luciano v. Luciano, 164 Cal.