Strategic Legal Guidance for California Business Owners Facing Marital Demand Letters
Understanding your obligations, assessing your risks, and responding effectively without making your situation worse
The letter demands access to your company's financial records, threatens litigation in multiple courts, alleges mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, and gives you a tight deadline to respond. Your first instinct might be to ignore it, push back hard, or immediately start "cleaning up" problematic records. All three of those instincts can make your situation significantly worse.
Once your spouse's attorney sends a detailed demand letter threatening litigation, several things happen automatically:
The real question is not whether you'll have to share information, but how you'll do it and on what terms.
You wear multiple hats: managing spouse under California Family Code (§§721, 1100, 1101), corporate officer/director under Corp. Code, and controlling shareholder with fiduciary duties to minority owners. Your response must account for all three roles—not just your corporate position.
The goal is to separate legitimate requests from overreach, provide required information while protecting trade secrets and third-party confidentiality, and avoid making admissions or destroying evidence that will haunt you later.
Short answer: Basic financial information (financials, tax returns, major contracts) is almost always required—either under corporate inspection statutes (if spouse is shareholder/member) or marital fiduciary duties (if community property owner).
You cannot indefinitely refuse books and records to a spouse who owns community property interest in the business. The real negotiation is how (phased production, confidentiality terms) and scope (reasonable limits on overbroad requests).
Realistic risks: Shareholder books-and-records litigation (Corp. Code §§1601-1603), family court inspection orders (Schnabel line of cases), Fam. Code §1101 breach claims with 50%-100% penalties plus fees, and adverse inferences from refusal to cooperate.
Courts view spousal inspection rights as substantive, not procedural. Stonewalling just delays the inevitable while racking up fees and creating bad facts.
Legitimate defenses: Overbroad requests (e.g., "all communications"), unreasonable deadlines, demands for privileged materials (attorney-client), trade secrets requiring confidentiality protection, and requests unrelated to spouse's shareholder/community property interests.
You can negotiate scope, timing, and confidentiality—but flat refusal to provide any financial information is usually indefensible.
⚠️ Danger zone: Once litigation is foreseeable (which it is after receiving this letter), you have a duty to preserve evidence. Deleting emails, shredding documents, or altering financial records = spoliation, which triggers serious sanctions.
You should implement better corporate governance going forward (separate bank accounts, proper minutes, compliant HR policies), but don't destroy or alter historical records.
I help California business owners respond to spousal demand letters in a way that protects your interests while minimizing litigation risk and sanctions exposure.
Initial response $600-800; complex multi-issue responses with extensive document review $1,000-1,500
📧 Request Response StrategyThis is not a typical corporate dispute where you can simply assert privilege and refuse discovery. California imposes unique obligations on spouses who manage community property businesses—obligations that override normal corporate confidentiality. A response drafted by a corporate lawyer who doesn't understand Family Code §§721, 1100, and 1101 can create serious exposure.
Conversely, a response that over-discloses or makes unnecessary admissions about corporate governance failures (commingling, alter ego, HR violations) can damage your position in later litigation.
You need someone who understands both sides of the equation: marital fiduciary duties and corporate defense strategy.
Before you can evaluate whether a demand letter is reasonable or overreaching, you need to understand the legal floor—the baseline obligations you have as both a managing spouse under California Family Code and as a corporate officer/shareholder/manager under Corp. Code. These are not negotiable; they exist regardless of what your spouse asks for.
Rule: Spouses are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships that control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other. This includes the duties partners owe each other under Corp. Code §§ 16403-16404 (Uniform Partnership Act).
Standard: "Highest good faith and fair dealing" — you cannot take unfair advantage of your spouse in transactions affecting community property.
Practical Impact: Courts have analogized spouses to business partners with partner-level access to financial information about community assets (including businesses). You cannot hide behind corporate formalities to avoid this duty.
💡 Key Insight: Even if your spouse is not a record shareholder or on any corporate documents, you still owe marital fiduciary duties regarding the community's interest in the business.
§1100(a)–(c): Either spouse has management and control over community personal property, but cannot make gifts or sell below value without written consent of the other spouse.
§1100(d) — Community Business (Critical): If all or substantially all of a business is community personal property, the spouse operating or managing the business has "primary management and control" and may act alone—BUT must give prior written notice to the other spouse for any:
Violation: Transactions without notice may be voidable; sets up Fam. Code §1101 breach claim.
⚠️ Common Trap: Many managing spouses think they can do "whatever they want" because they're the CEO/manager. §1100(d) says you can act alone, but not secretly—major transactions require notice.
Cause of Action: A spouse can sue the other for any breach of §§721 or 1100 that results in "impairment" of their one-half interest in the community estate.
Remedies:
Practice Reality: Family law attorneys increasingly use §1101(h) + Civ. Code §3294 as a "hidden weapon" in high-asset disputes involving business owners who hide transactions or divert funds.
⚠️ Fee-Shifting Risk: If you unreasonably refuse to provide information and spouse prevails, §1101(g) mandates attorney-fee award on top of the 50% or 100% penalty.
Rule: Any shareholder of record has the right, upon written demand, to inspect and copy the corporation's accounting books, records, and minutes of shareholders, board, and committee proceedings at reasonable times for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as a shareholder.
Scope: Extends to subsidiaries; cannot be limited by articles or bylaws.
Standing Requirement: Must be shareholder of record. Recent California cases clarify that beneficial owners who are not on the stock ledger cannot invoke §1601 directly—but can still use Family Code §721 as spouse.
Rule: Every director has an absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records, and documents of every kind, and to inspect physical properties of the corporation and its subsidiaries.
Impact: If your spouse is a director (or can establish they should be recognized as director under de facto director theories), inspection rights are even broader than shareholder rights.
Rule: On verified petition of a shareholder, the court may appoint inspectors or accountants to examine the corporation's books and report to the court.
Enforcement: Officers and agents must produce all books and documents in their custody or control under penalty of contempt.
Practice Tip: If you refuse a §1601 demand, spouse can quickly obtain a court order under §1603—and you'll likely be on the hook for their attorney fees.
Rule: Managers of California LLCs must provide members with an annual report (balance sheet, income statement, cash flow) within 120 days of fiscal year end.
Member Rights: Any member (or their attorney/agent) can inspect and copy LLC records including membership list, manager list, operating agreement, tax returns, and financial statements.
Penalties: Refusal triggers per-day penalties payable to the requesting member.
If your spouse is a record shareholder/member, they can invoke both:
If your spouse is only a community co-owner (not on stock ledger/membership list), they cannot directly use corporate statutes but still have powerful marital disclosure rights.
Bottom line: "You're not a shareholder, so you get nothing" is not a valid response if the business is community property.
| Document Category | If Spouse = Record Shareholder | If Spouse = Community Co-Owner Only |
|---|---|---|
| Financial Statements (Balance sheet, P&L, cash flow) | ✅ Required (Corp. Code §1601/§17704.10) | ✅ Required (Fam. Code §721, Schnabel) |
| Tax Returns (Corporate + K-1s) | ✅ Required (§1601/§17704.10) | ✅ Required (§721, necessary to value community interest) |
| Stock Ledger / Membership List | ✅ Required (§1601/§17704.10) | ⚠️ Arguably required to verify community character |
| Operating Agreement / Bylaws | ✅ Required (§1601/§17704.10) | ⚠️ Arguably required (governs community asset) |
| Board/Manager Minutes | ✅ Required (§1601/§1602) | ⚠️ May be required if relevant to major transactions (§1100(d)) |
| Major Contracts (leases, loans, acquisitions) | ✅ Required if reasonably related to shareholder interests | ✅ Required if §1100(d) notice obligation triggered |
| Bank Statements | ⚠️ Overbroad unless tied to specific concern (commingling, undisclosed transfers) | ⚠️ Overbroad unless tied to specific §1101 claim |
| All Employee Communications | ❌ Overbroad; can limit to specific issues (harassment claims, etc.) | ❌ Overbroad; can limit |
| Trade Secrets / Confidential Business Plans | ⚠️ May require confidentiality agreement or in-camera review | ⚠️ May require confidentiality agreement |
The legal floor for spousal information access is high—basic financial records are almost always required. But you have legitimate grounds to:
The key is to cooperate on substance while protecting process and confidentiality.
Many business owners' initial reaction to a spousal demand letter is: "This is outrageous, I'm not giving them anything." That's an understandable emotional response—but it's important to understand the realistic legal and financial consequences of ignoring or stonewalling the demand. This section maps the likely exposure pathways.
If spouse is record shareholder/member: They can file a verified petition in civil court demanding inspection under Corp. Code §§1601-1603 (corporations) or §17704.10 (LLCs).
Standard: Courts broadly construe inspection rights. Burden is on corporation to show request is not "reasonably related to shareholder's interests."
Timeline: These petitions often move quickly (60-90 days). Courts can appoint accountants/inspectors under §1603 and compel production under penalty of contempt.
Fee-Shifting: If you unreasonably refuse and lose, you typically pay spouse's attorney fees.
⚠️ Reality: Shareholders win the vast majority of inspection cases in California when demands are reasonably focused. Stalling just racks up fees.
If spouse is community co-owner only: They can seek family court orders compelling production under Schnabel v. Superior Court (5 Cal.4th 704), which held that non-record spouses have broad discovery rights to corporate records when shares are community property.
Standard: Family courts expect full transparency about community assets. "Corporate confidentiality" and "trade secrets" defenses are viewed skeptically unless accompanied by concrete third-party harm.
Consequence: Even if spouse can't invoke Corp. Code §1601, they get the same information via family court discovery—plus potential sanctions if you resist without good cause.
⚠️ Reality: Schnabel makes clear that corporate form does not shield community property businesses from spousal information rights.
Trigger: Any breach of §§721 or 1100 that "results in impairment" of spouse's community property interest.
Common Breach Scenarios Alleged in Demand Letters:
Remedies:
💡 Example: If you sold a $500K warehouse without notice to spouse (§1100(d) violation), spouse can claim 50% ($250K) under §1101(g), or 100% ($500K) under §1101(h) if they prove you acted with malice/oppression—plus their attorney fees.
Here's where stonewalling can dramatically backfire:
A well-documented pattern of stonewalling makes the §1101(h) claim much easier to prove.
California Court of Appeal – Leading Alter Ego Case
Two-Prong Test:
Factors Courts Consider (from Associated Vendors):
Impact on Spousal Disputes: If multiple entities (e.g., "Alley Cat Creations," "All Pests," "Duramore") are commingled, spouse can argue all are part of single community estate—and all liabilities of each attach to all.
Spousal demand letters frequently list classic Associated Vendors factors as alleged misconduct:
Strategic Response: Don't simply dismiss these allegations. If there is commingling, start planning a corporate clean-up (separate accounts, separate tax filings, proper minutes) while being careful not to admit the problem in writing.
California Spoliation Doctrine
Definition: Spoliation = destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or failure to preserve evidence, for another's use in pending or future litigation.
Duty to Preserve Arises When: Party knows or reasonably should know they will be sued. Receipt of detailed demand letter threatening litigation = foreseeable litigation.
Sanctions for Spoliation:
Common Spoliation in Business Disputes: Deleting emails, shredding contracts, altering financial statements, "cleaning up" HR files after receiving demand letter.
Once you receive a demand letter threatening litigation, you must implement a litigation hold:
Instinct to "fix" problems before producing records can destroy your case. If there are governance issues (commingling, missing minutes, HR violations), address them going forward, but don't alter the historical record.
Demand letters often include a laundry list of operational issues: HR violations, safety negligence, discrimination, etc. While these may seem like "kitchen sink" complaints, they serve strategic purposes:
If spouse is shareholder, they can threaten derivative suit on behalf of corporation for mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, or breach of fiduciary duty as officer/director.
Example: "You exposed corporation to employment liability by failing to maintain compliant HR policies, creating claim for breach of duty of care as director."
If business is community property and your mismanagement causes losses (lawsuit settlements, regulatory fines), spouse can claim §1101 breach for impairing community estate value.
Even if you have broad authority as manager, gross negligence can still breach marital fiduciary duties.
By alleging specific operational issues (e.g., "intoxicated employee caused damage"), spouse creates basis for broad document requests: all HR files, safety policies, insurance claims, etc.
This expands discovery beyond just financials into operational details.
The more problems spouse can identify, the more negotiating leverage they have. Even if claims are weak, they create nuisance value and increase your cost/risk of litigation.
You may prefer to settle on information access rather than litigate multiple fronts.
| Your Response | Likely Short-Term Outcome | Likely Long-Term Outcome | Cost/Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ignore Letter Entirely | Spouse files books-and-records petition or family court discovery motion within 30-60 days | Court orders production + likely fee award against you; adverse inference from refusal to cooperate | 🔴 High Cost, High Risk |
| Flat Refusal ("You Get Nothing") | Litigation on multiple fronts: §1601/§1603 petition, family court, §1101 claim | You lose on information access; refusal used as evidence of malice/oppression for §1101(h); fee-shifting sanctions | 🔴 Very High Cost, Very High Risk |
| Delay/Stall Without Valid Basis | Spouse files motion to compel; pattern of obstruction documented | Court orders expedited production; sanctions for bad-faith delay; attorney fees to spouse | 🟠 Medium-High Cost, High Risk |
| Partial Compliance + Reasonable Objections | Negotiations over scope, timing, confidentiality; possible limited motion practice | Most information eventually produced on negotiated terms; litigation avoided or limited; lower sanctions risk | 🟡 Medium Cost, Medium Risk |
| Good-Faith Cooperation + Confidentiality Terms | Phased production with confidentiality agreement; ongoing dialogue | Information access provided; operational issues addressed; litigation avoided or settled early; minimal sanctions risk | 🟢 Low Cost, Low Risk |
The realistic risk analysis is this:
The smarter play: Cooperate on substance (provide core financial info) while negotiating terms (phased production, confidentiality, reasonable scope limits) and addressing governance issues going forward.
Now that you understand your obligations (Tab 2) and your risks (Tab 3), the question is: how do you actually respond? This section provides a practical roadmap for drafting a response that protects your interests while minimizing litigation risk and sanctions exposure.
Questions to answer:
💡 Key Insight: If spouse is record shareholder, they have dual rights (corporate + marital). If only community co-owner, they have strong marital rights but cannot directly invoke Corp. Code inspection statutes.
Go through the demand letter's document list and categorize each request:
| Category | Response Strategy | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Core Financial (Must Provide) | Produce without objection, possibly with confidentiality terms | Financial statements, tax returns, stock ledger, operating agreement |
| ⚠️ Reasonable with Limits | Produce with scope limitations or phasing | Major contracts (limit to >$X threshold), board minutes (limit to date range) |
| 🔒 Confidential/Privileged | Object or require confidentiality agreement | Trade secrets, attorney-client communications, proprietary business plans |
| ❌ Overbroad | Object and propose narrower scope | "All communications," "all employee files," unspecified bank statements |
| ❌ Irrelevant | Object as not reasonably related to shareholder/spouse interests | Personal emails, unrelated business ventures, third-party vendor communications |
Demand letters often include specific allegations of misconduct. For each allegation, determine:
⚠️ Caution: Do not reflexively deny everything. If allegations are true, denying them in writing creates impeachment evidence. Better to say "we dispute your characterization" or stay silent on specific facts while providing requested documents.
Tone: Professional and measured, not combative.
Sample language:
"This letter responds to your demand letter dated [Date] on behalf of [Spouse Name]. We acknowledge receipt and have reviewed the requests and allegations contained therein. This response addresses your requests for corporate records and information, clarifies certain factual matters, and proposes a reasonable path forward for document production."
Purpose: Frame the legal landscape without making unnecessary concessions.
If spouse is record shareholder/member:
"We acknowledge that [Spouse Name] is a shareholder of record of [Company Name] and, as such, has inspection rights under California Corporations Code §§ 1601-1603 for documents reasonably related to their interests as a shareholder. We also recognize the general fiduciary obligations that exist between spouses under California Family Code § 721."
If spouse is community co-owner only:
"While [Spouse Name] is not listed as a shareholder of record and therefore cannot invoke California Corporations Code § 1601 directly, we acknowledge the fiduciary duties between spouses under Family Code § 721 and the disclosure obligations regarding community property assets. We are committed to providing appropriate financial information consistent with those obligations."
Go through each category of documents requested and state your position clearly:
✅ Documents We Will Provide Without Objection:
Timeline: We will produce these documents on a rolling basis, with initial production within 30 days.
⚠️ Documents We Will Provide Subject to Confidentiality Agreement:
We propose a mutual confidentiality agreement to protect against disclosure to competitors or third parties. Draft agreement attached for your review.
❌ Requests We Object To as Overbroad:
🔒 Privileged Materials We Cannot Produce:
Strategy: Do not ignore serious allegations, but do not make detailed admissions either.
Option 1 (Conservative): "We dispute many of the factual characterizations in your letter, but believe document production will provide a more complete picture than a point-by-point rebuttal at this stage."
Option 2 (Targeted): Address the most serious allegations specifically:
"Regarding the allegation that [specific transaction] occurred 'without notice,' we note that [factual response—e.g., 'email notice was sent on [date]' or 'transaction did not meet the threshold for §1100(d) notice as it was not a disposition of substantially all business assets']."
Tone: Measured, not defensive.
"We are committed to good-faith cooperation and transparent disclosure of financial information consistent with applicable law. We believe the phased production outlined above addresses the core requests in your letter and hope to avoid unnecessary litigation. Should you disagree, we are available to meet and confer to narrow any disputes before resorting to court intervention."
"Please confirm receipt of this response and advise whether the proposed production schedule and confidentiality terms are acceptable. We look forward to resolving these matters cooperatively."
While responding to the demand letter, you should also address legitimate operational and governance issues prospectively:
⚠️ Critical: Do this going forward to reduce future exposure. Do NOT alter or destroy historical records showing past commingling—that's spoliation. The message is: "We take these issues seriously and have implemented corrective measures."
First response rarely ends the matter. Expect:
Stay proactive: offer to meet and confer to resolve disputes before they escalate to motions.
Once initial information is exchanged, both sides have better sense of strengths/weaknesses. Consider:
I provide strategic counsel and drafting services for California business owners responding to spousal demand letters:
Initial response $600-800; complex multi-issue responses with extensive document review and negotiation $1,000-1,500
📧 Request Response StrategyThese cases establish the legal framework that governs your obligations and risks when responding to a spousal demand letter. Understanding them helps you evaluate the credibility of threats and the reasonableness of requests.
California Supreme Court
Facts: Husband was employee and 30% record shareholder of close corporation; stock was community property. During dissolution, wife sought corporate financial records. Trial court denied, stating she was not shareholder of record.
Holding: California Supreme Court reversed, holding that non-record spouse has broad discovery rights to corporate records when shares are community property, based on need to value community interest and enforce marital rights.
Impact: Even if spouse is not shareholder of record, they can obtain corporate financial information via family court discovery in dissolution proceedings (and, by extension, in pre-dissolution disputes about community business).
Practice Tip: Schnabel undermines "you're not a shareholder, so you get nothing" defense. Courts expect transparency about community property businesses.
California Court of Appeal, Second District
Holding: Managing spouse has affirmative, sua sponte duty to acquire and disclose information concerning value and character of community assets, including pensions and business interests.
Impact: It's not enough to passively answer questions or respond only when asked. Managing spouse must proactively investigate and disclose.
Application to Demand Letters: Once spouse requests business information, you cannot claim "you never specifically asked about X transaction." Duty is ongoing and comprehensive.
California Court of Appeal, First District
Holding: In interspousal transactions where one spouse gains advantage, a presumption of undue influence arises due to fiduciary relationship under Fam. Code §721.
Impact: If you engage in self-dealing (e.g., buying business assets at below-market price, transferring community property to separate holding company), burden shifts to you to prove transaction was fair, with full disclosure, and without undue influence.
California Court of Appeal, First District
Holding: Trial court erred in denying shareholder inspection rights under Corp. Code §1601. California inspection rights are broad and cannot be denied based on speculation about shareholder's improper motives.
Standard: As long as request is "reasonably related to shareholder's interests," inspection must be allowed. Burden is on corporation to show request is clearly improper.
Practice Tip: Courts view inspection rights as substantive and enforceable. "We don't trust your motives" is not a valid objection.
California Court of Appeal – Leading Alter Ego Case
Two-Prong Alter Ego Test:
Factors: Commingling of funds, shared EIN, same office/employees, failure to maintain separate books, inadequate capitalization, one entity paying expenses of another, disregard of formalities.
Application to Spousal Disputes: If demand letter alleges commingling between multiple entities or personal/business accounts, they're teeing up Associated Vendors alter ego claim. Take allegations seriously and implement corporate clean-up.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
Definition: Spoliation = destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.
Duty to Preserve Arises When: Party knows or reasonably should know that evidence is relevant to litigation or potential litigation.
Application: Receipt of detailed demand letter threatening litigation = foreseeable litigation. Duty to preserve evidence attaches immediately.
California Supreme Court
Holding: No independent tort for intentional spoliation by third party, but spoliation can trigger serious sanctions within the underlying litigation, including:
Practice Warning: Deleting emails, shredding documents, or altering records after receiving demand letter can result in devastating sanctions—even if underlying claims are weak.
| Legal Issue | Leading Case | Impact on Your Response |
|---|---|---|
| Spousal Access to Business Records | Schnabel (5 Cal.4th 704) | "You're not a shareholder of record" is not a valid defense if business is community property. Family court can order disclosure. |
| Managing Spouse's Duty to Disclose | Brewer & Federici (93 Cal.App.4th 1334) | Duty is affirmative and ongoing. Cannot claim "you didn't specifically ask about X." Must proactively disclose material transactions. |
| Self-Dealing Transactions | Haines (33 Cal.App.4th 277) | Burden shifts to you to prove transaction was fair with full disclosure. Avoid admitting self-dealing in response letter. |
| Shareholder Inspection Rights | Havlicek (39 Cal.App.4th 1844) | Corp. Code §1601 rights are broad. Cannot deny based on "improper motives." Must show request is clearly unrelated to shareholder interests. |
| Alter Ego / Commingling | Associated Vendors (210 Cal.App.2d 825) | If demand letter alleges commingling, take seriously. Implement corporate clean-up going forward. Don't dismiss as frivolous. |
| Evidence Preservation | Williams v. Russ (167 Cal.App.4th 1215) | Duty to preserve evidence arises upon receipt of demand letter. Implement litigation hold immediately. Do not delete/alter records. |
| Spoliation Sanctions | Cedars-Sinai (18 Cal.4th 1) | Destroying evidence after demand letter = serious sanctions (adverse inferences, fees, terminating sanctions). Avoid at all costs. |
The pattern across these cases is clear:
Implication for response strategy: Cooperate on substance (core financial info) while negotiating reasonable terms (scope, timing, confidentiality). Fighting disclosure entirely is expensive and rarely successful.
I help California business owners respond strategically to spousal demand letters in a way that protects your interests, minimizes litigation risk, and avoids sanctions exposure. Whether you've just received a letter or are in ongoing negotiations, I provide practical counsel rooted in both family law and corporate litigation experience.
Initial response with standard document requests: $600-800
Complex multi-issue responses with extensive factual allegations, multiple entities, and negotiation: $1,000-1,500
Follow-up correspondence and ongoing strategy billed separately
Complete the form below with details about the demand letter you received, and I'll provide you with a free initial consultation and quote. All inquiries are confidential. I typically respond within 1 business day.
For urgent matters or quick questions about responding to a demand letter:
owner@terms.lawSchedule a 30-minute Zoom call to discuss the demand letter you received and develop a response strategy.
Schedule ConsultationAll consultations are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege (if representation is established). Initial consultations and quotes are provided at no charge. I typically respond to all inquiries within 1 business day—often within a few hours for urgent deadline situations.