"[T]he drafters of the California legislation believed that an equal division standard, by limiting judicial discretion and assuring each partner an equal share of their jointly accumulated property, was more fair than the vague standard of an ‘equitable’ division of property. The equitable standard, which is now used in most of the separate property states, not only gives judges the power ‘to do justice’ by dividing the marital property according to need, it also allows judges to use their own subjective standards of equity (and therefore results in a greater diversity of awards)." Since "[t]he debates over ‘equal’ versus ‘equitable’ rules for the division of marital property is a continuing one," Lenore Weitzman looked to empirical data to find out "how do the two sexes fare under equal versus equitable rules." "On the whole," the analysis showed that property "is being divided more equally in accord with the explicit directives of the new law. On the other hand, the word ‘equality’ suggests fairness and equity for all parties involved. In this light, the results of the legal reform are less clear."

Weitzman’s research showed that "the adverse economic effects of the changing pattern of property has fallen on women. Under the old law, women were typically awarded most of the marital property, and this tended to cushion the economic impact of divorce. Today, under the equal division rule, they receive much less. The clearest result of this change is the increase in court orders for the matrimonial home to be sold upon divorce so that the property can be divided equally."

The new law also brought change to the division of community assets and debts: "It had traditionally been assumed that a business belongs to the husband, even in cases where it is legally part of a couple’s community property. In the past, the easy property settlement in this regard was one in which the divorcing parties owned both a home and a business: the wife could be awarded the home, the husband could be awarded the business, and the two assets were assumed to balance each other out. Since an equal division was not required under the old law, identifying the exact values of the two assets was not considered necessary....

.... [under the new law] while the courts are anxious to sell the matrimonial home to effect an equal division of property, they do not seem to feel any similar pressure when it comes to a business. Instead, the courts go to great length to keep the business intact (and typically in the name of the husband).... In addition, if a business remains in joint ownership, possession and control is invariably awarded to the husband ... because judges say it is unfair and unrealistic to expect him to share control with his wife....

.... pensions were included in the community property and divided at divorce. For younger couples most of the California attorneys ... interviewed favored ‘cashing-out’ the pension at the time of the divorce, with an offsetting award of other assets to the non-worker spouse.

For older couples, however, a ‘future-share’ approach was preferred. When a couple divorces in their fifties, and if one spouse faces limited prospects for employment after divorce, both spouses will need the income from the primary wage earner’s pension (In many of these cases the husband’s pension was the most valuable asset appraised at divorce). In these cases the ‘division’ of the pension was likely to be delayed until the pension benefits were paid, with a ‘future share’ awarded to each spouse. (Once again this seemingly fair solution may have unanticipated inequities: Because the working spouse, who is typically the husband, retains control over the timing and the structure of the pension, the non-employee spouse, who is typically the wife, can find herself seriously restricted or barred from receiving her full share of the pension benefits).

Money stocks and bonds are most amenable to an equal division and their disposition reflects the equalization trend observed for all community assets. It is not surprising, however, to find only about a quarter of these assets awarded to one or the other spouse because these assets are commonly used to offset other awards and to equalize the overall division of property.

.... [As for debts] ... Under the old law, the husband was typically ordered to pay the community debts because it was assumed that he was the wage earner with the income to pay them... [Though] the data from court records show a steady increase in the percentage of debts that are divided equally ... the husband continues to be ordered to pay the community debts in more than half of the cases ....

The attorneys in [the] study reported that the major difference in the way debts are handled under no-fault is that while the husband is still required to pay them off, he now is given a ‘credit’ for the obligation by being awarded an asset of equivalent value.

In recent years case law development have clarified the rule for disposition of community debts. In general, debts are to be considered along with assets, and the total net worth is to be divided equally between the two spouses. If, however, there are only debts at the time of divorce, or if the debts exceed the assets so that the community has a negative net worth, the judge has the discretion to dispose of the debts in an equitable manner depending on the earning capacities of the two spouses and other relevant factors. In addition, there is a statutory exception for debts incurred for educational purposes: they may be awarded to the student spouse who benefited from the educational loan..."

In conclusion, Weitzman indicates the following unintended consequences: "The required equal division of property has brought more forced sales of family assets, especially the family home, so that the proceeds can be divided between the two spouses. The result is increased dislocation and disruption in the lives of minor children (in contrast to the old law pattern in which the wife with custody of minor children was typically awarded the family home). This does not seem fair, in that the needs and interests of the children are not considered. It is as if the family consisted of two people. Under the equal division rule, ‘equality’ means that three people (the wife and, on average, two children) share one-half of the marital assets while one person (the husband) is awarded the other half for himself....

A second problem of ‘equality’ emerges from these data: a 50/50 division of family property may not produce equality of results - or equality of standards of living after divorce - if the two spouses are unequally situated at the point of the divorce. This is most evident in the situation of the older housewife under the new law. In contrast to the traditional pattern of awarding a larger share of the community assets to the wife, ostensibly because she was ‘innocent’ but in practice because her greater need was recognized, the new rules require that she be treated ‘equally.’ Yet after a marital life devoted to homemaking, she is typically without substantial skills and experience in the labor force and typically needs a greater share of the property to cushion the income loss she suffers at divorce. She is, simply put, not in an equal economic position at divorce. The traditional law took her special needs into consideration and gave her more than half of the family property because she needed more than half. Today, with only half of the tangible assets and with a lesser capacity to earn a reasonable income after divorce, she is severely disadvantaged by the so-called ‘equal’ division of property.....

A third issue is suggested by the question of whether the equal division rule has brought more equitable results: what is the basis for comparison? .... not ... all the awards based on fault produced more equitable results... a woman who was labeled guilty under the old law was barred from a larger share of property even if she had minor children. This was so even if she had been a homemaker for 30 years. Thus the fault system created it sown inequities, and there are few incentives to return to it in order to provide the average ‘innocent’ wife with the property award she needs. Rather, the time has come to fashion rules that overcome the inequities of both systems. What we need is a new standard based on equality of results for the two spouses...."

The new standard, Weitzman suggests, should draw on the changing nature of property. "We no longer invest in family farms - today we invest in ourselves and in our ability to earn future income - that is, in our human capital and our careers. The new property that results from these investments includes enhanced earning capacities, pensions, and job-related benefits. Since these new forms of property are often the major assets acquired during marriage ... the law must recognize them as part of the marital property that is divided at divorce....

.... [C]areer assets, along with the family home, are often the most valuable assets a couple owns at the time of the divorce. If courts do not recognize some or all of these assets as marital property, they are excluding a major portion of a couple’s property from the pool of property to be divided upon divorce. In addition, if the courts treat these assets as the sole property of the major wage earner, they are in most cases allowing the husband to keep the family’s most valuable assets. It is like saying we are going to divide the family jewels, but will set aside the diamonds for the husband. Because career assets are the ‘diamonds’ of marital property, it is impossible to have either an equal or an equitable division of marital property without them." [Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution (1985)]