> [!info] Prepared locally > Revised text and original picture are ready. WordPress save, rendered checks and publication remain to be verified. This phrase refers to a financial remedy authorized by a particular statute when the required wrongful conduct is established. It is not a single fixed penalty that applies whenever someone acts angrily or unfairly. The governing statute determines the elements, proof and available relief. ## In California Family Law One important context is a spouse's breach of fiduciary duties affecting the community estate. [[Cal. Fam. Code § 1101|Family Code section 1101]] provides remedies tied to assets undisclosed or transferred in breach of those duties. Subdivision (g) includes a 50-percent asset-based award plus attorney fees and costs; subdivision (h) provides an enhanced 100-percent asset-based remedy when the breach falls within Civil Code section 3294. The enhanced remedy concerns the affected asset or its value, not an automatic award of the entire marital estate. Nor does the existence of an omitted asset, without the required findings, establish that the enhanced remedy applies. That asset-based remedy should be distinguished from a general award of punitive or exemplary damages. Civil Code section 3294 separately addresses exemplary damages for specified obligations not arising from contract. Its incorporation into section 1101(h) does not create a blanket entitlement to additional damages whenever a spouse alleges malice; the particular statutory claim and required findings still control. ## Malice, Oppression and Fraud Civil Code section 3294 requires clear and convincing proof of the specified misconduct. Its malice definition includes intended injury or despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of others' rights or safety. Malice should not be reduced to a requirement of personal hatred, and it is not the only route covered by section 3294: oppression and fraud are also addressed. In [In re Marriage of Rossi (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 34](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/90/34.html), the court affirmed the award of concealed lottery winnings under section 1101(h) based on fraud. It expressly found it unnecessary to decide the alternative malice and oppression grounds. The case should not be described as requiring personal ill will for every enhanced fiduciary-breach award. ## Example A spouse alleges deliberate concealment of a community asset. The court must evaluate the breach, the asset involved and the required misconduct and proof. The allegation alone does not fix the remedy, and an enhanced award cannot be assumed merely from an acrimonious divorce. ![[Files/OtherFiles/Statutory damages for malice.jpg]]