In re Marriage of Hillerman (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 334 is a California appellate court decision that addressed the issue of property division in a divorce case. In this case, the husband and wife had been married for 24 years and had accumulated significant assets during their marriage, including a home, rental property, and retirement accounts. When the couple decided to divorce, they could not agree on how to divide their assets. The trial court ultimately divided the property unequally, awarding the wife a larger share of the marital assets. The husband appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion by not dividing the property equally. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion. The court noted that California law did not require an equal division of marital property, but rather a "just and equitable" division. The court found that the trial court had considered all of the relevant factors, including the couple's respective contributions to the marital estate, their earning capacities, and their future financial needs, in making its decision. The appellate court also rejected the husband's argument that the trial court had improperly included the husband's separate property in the overall property division. The court held that the trial court had properly considered the value of the husband's separate property in determining a just and equitable division of the marital property. Overall, In re Marriage of Hillerman stands for the proposition that California courts have broad discretion in dividing marital property in a divorce case, and that a just and equitable division may not always result in an equal division.