state law. Specifically, it “dictates the character of property acquired thereafter.” Norviel, 102 Cal.App.4th at 1158, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 148. Also, “[a] spouse’s ‘earnings and accumulations ... while living separate and apart from the other spouse’ are separate property.” Id. (citing Cal. Fam.Code § 771(a)) (alterations in original); see also Marsden, 130 Cal.App.3d at 432-33, 181 Cal.Rptr. 910; Cal. Fam.Code § 772. Critically, these consequences flow from the date of the separation, not from the date of a court order. See Norviel, 102 Cal.App.4th at 1158, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 148. In this case, the California Superi- or Court entered a formal order — the judgment of dissolution of marriage — that recognized that Minasyan’s parents separated in October 1993. Cf. Brissett, 363 F.3d at 136 (<HOLDING>). Thus, although the dissolution was not final
holding that there was no legal separation where there was no evidence  that the orders at issue mandated or acknowledged separate existences holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial