The Law Office of Edward Misleh
The Law Office of Edward Misleh
Skip to content
  • Home Page
  • Areas of Practice
    • Divorce Attorney
    • Domestic Violence Attorney
    • Child Custody Attorney
    • Child Support Attorney
    • Spousal Support Attorney
    • Community Property Attorney
    • Guardianship Attorney
    • Family Law Attorney
    • Adoption Attorney
    • California Attorney Blog
  • Resources
    • Forms
    • California Attorney Blog
    • Our Office
    • Website Search
    • Site Map
  • The Law Offices
  • Contact Us

-

Home » Areas of Practice » Community Property » Community Interest

Community Interest

Posted on June 1, 2017September 17, 2019 by edmisleh

Community Interest

Your community interest in property is created when either you or your spouse use community funds to pay-down a mortgage on one spouse’s separate property.  This often happens when one spouse has purchased a home before marriage, which is mortgaged, and then uses their income for employment to pay on the loan during marriage.

Apportionable Interest

When community funds are used to make payments to reduce the principal balance of a separate property mortgage, a community interest is created.  The community interest is an apportionable ownership interest in the mortgaged property consisting of a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement for those payments and an interest in the appreciation of the separate property.  See Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 C3d 366; Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 CA3d 426.  The apportionment to determine your community interest is now called the “Moore-Marsden Rule.”

The court in Bono v Clark (2002) 103 CA4th 1409, 1422, criticized on other grounds in Marriage of Sherman (2005) 133 CA4th 795, 802, extended the Moore-Marsden Rule to community expenditures for improvements to the owner’s separate property.  See also Marriage of Allen (2002) 96 CA4th 497.  Thus, when community funds are used to make capital improvements to separate property, the community may acquire an ownership interest in the separate property consisting of:

  •  Dollar-for-dollar reimbursement for contributions to capital improvements (even if the improvements did not enhance the property’s value);  and,
  • An interest in the appreciation of the separate property, provided the improvements actually increase the value of the property.

Community Funds Used to Pay on Separate Property

When community funds are used to make mortgage payments on separate property, it has long been the law that your community interest in the property is by virtue of the principal payments.  See, e.g., Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 C3d 366, 371 (property acquired before marriage);  Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 CA3d 489, 503 (property acquired during marriage).

The effect of using community funds to pay for improvements to separate property has been unclear, however, regarding both the community’s right to reimbursement (Marriage of Camire (1980) 105 CA3d 859, 866) and the extent of any community interest acquired in the property.  See Marriage of Wolfe (2001) 91 CA4th 962, 966 (court allowed reimbursement of dollars invested but did not address whether community had right to pro tanto interest in separate property’s enhanced value).  In Marriage of Allen (2002) 96 CA4th 497, the court held that there is no presumption of a gift when a spouse consents to the use of community funds to make capital improvements to the other spouse’s separate property, reasoning that Marriage of Camire, supra, predated the Moore-Marsden Rule.

In a probate matter that followed an unconcluded marital dissolution, an appellate court agreed with Allen and held that if the improvements contributed to an increase in the separate property’s value as measured by a formula set out in the case, then the community is entitled to a pro tanto interest in the separate property.  See Bono v Clark (2002) 103 CA4th 1409.  If the improvements did not increase the separate property’s value, then the community is entitled to reimbursement for its expenditures toward the improvements. 103 CA4th at 1425.

Community Interest in Property Acquired Before Marriage

It is not uncommon for community funds to be used for mortgage payments on property purchased by one or both of the spouses before marriage.  When this occurs, the community interest is a pro tanto interest in the ratio that the payments on the purchase price made with community funds bear to the total payments on the purchase price, and any appreciation must be apportioned accordingly.  See Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 C3d 366, 371, 373.  In calculating the respective separate and community interests, amounts paid for interest, taxes, and insurance are excluded because they do not increase the owner’s equity in the property.  In addressing the respective contributions of the separate and community property to the purchase price, the value of the loan taken to purchase the property must be recognized.  The proceeds will be treated as a separate property contribution when the loan is based on separate assets and treated as a community property contribution when the loan is based on community assets.

The proper approach to apportioning between separate and community interests when one party purchases property by making a down payment and securing a loan before marriage, and the community makes payments on the loan during marriage, is set forth in Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 CA3d 426.  In Marsden, the husband purchased a leasehold and house before marriage for $38,300.  He made down payments of $8,300 and secured a loan for the remaining $30,000.  By the time of the marriage, the husband had reduced the principal due on the loan by $7,000.  The trial court found the fair market value of the house and leasehold interest at the time of the marriage to be $65,000.  Thus, the appreciation before marriage was $26,700 ($65,000 minus $38,300).  Between the date of marriage and the date of separation, payments from community funds further reduced the principal due on the loan by $9,200. Between the date of separation and the time of trial, the husband reduced the principal due by an additional $655.  The trial court found the fair market value at the time of trial to be $182,500.  Thus, the appreciation during marriage was $117,500 ($182,500 minus $65,000).  The balance on the loan at the time of trial was $13,145. 130.

The Marsden court determined the community property interest to be 24.02 percent, i.e., the ratio that the payments on the purchase price made with community funds ($9,200) bore to the total payments on the purchase price ($38,300).  Note that the loan proceeds, to the extent that they have not been offset by community loan payments, are recognized as a separate property contribution toward the purchase price.  The separate property interest was the remaining 75.98 percent,i.e., the ratio that the payments on the purchase price made with separate funds ($8,300 down payments, plus $30,000 loan proceeds less $9,200 community payments, equals $29,100) bore to the total payments on the purchase price.  The separate property was credited with:

  • Down payments: $8,300.00;
  • Loan payments before marriage: $7,000.00;
  • Loan payments during marriage: $ 655.00;
  • 100 of appreciation before marriage: $26,700.00;
  • 75.98 % of appreciation during marrige: $89,276.50;
  • TOTAL: $131,931.50

The community property was credited with:

  • Loan payments during marriage: $9,200.00;
  • 24.02% of appreciation during marriage: $28,223.50;
  • TOTAL: $37,423.50

The separate property interest of $131,931.50 was confirmed to the husband and, in addition, he was awarded half of the community interest of $37,423.50, or $18,711.75, for a total of $150,643.25.  The wife was awarded half of the community interest, or $18,711.75. The husband was assigned the balance due on the loan. Thus:

  • Husband’s share of equity: $150,643.25;
  • Wife’s share of equity: $18,711.75;
  • Loan balance: $13,145.00;
  • Fair Market Value: $182,500.00

The Moore Marsden Calculation for Your Community Interest

  1. Purchase price of home:  _______________
  2. Amount of down payment:  _____________
  3. Amount of payments on loan principal made with separate funds:  _______________
  4. Fair market value at date of marriage:  ________________
  5. Amount of payments on loan principal made with community funds:  _____________
  6. Fair market value at time of division:  ________________
  7. Subtract line 1 from line 4:  ________________
  8. Subtract line 4 from line 6:  _______________
  9. Divide line 5 by line 1:  __________________
  10. Multiply line 8 by line 9:  ________________
  11. Subtract line 10 from line 8:  _________________
  12. Add lines 2, 3, 7, and 11 for the separate property interest:  _________________
  13. Add lines 5 and 10 for the community property interest):  __________________

Both Parties Contribute Separate Property Toward Purchase

When both parties have made separate property contributions to the purchase price of the property, each party acquires a separate property interest to be ascertained by making the Marsden calculations.  See Marriage of Rico (1992) 10 CA4th 706.  Following the principle set forth in Family Code §2552, requiring the court to value assets and liabilities as near as practicable to the time of trial, the proper valuation date for a community property residence for purposes of a dissolution proceeding is the date of trial unless there is some reason that renders this result inequitable.  See Marriage of Sherman (2005) 133 CA4th 795, 800.

In one case, the Moore-Marsden approach was applied when a community property home was converted by a quitclaim deed during the marriage to the husband’s separate property, and community funds were thereafter used to make loan payments.  See Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 CA3d 489, 501.  The only community contributions to be included in determining the community interest in the home, however, were those made after the execution of the quitclaim deed.

Although it is usually applied to family residences, the approach set forth here is equally applicable to other real property.  See, e.g., Marriage of Frick (1986) 181 CA3d 997, 1007 (real property used to operate hotel and restaurant).

Likewise, although it is usually applied to the use of community funds to make payments on one spouse’s preexisting loan, this approach is equally applicable to the use of proceeds from a community loan to pay off the preexisting separate loan.  See Marriage of Branco (1996) 47 CA4th 1621, 1627.

Marriage of Moore, supra, although it did not expressly consider the issue, appears to foreclose the spouse who owns the separate property from seeking to avoid the community interest by arguing that the community payments were a gift to him or her.  One court allowed such an argument, however, and held, on that basis, that a residence was entirely separate property despite community payments on two mortgages.  See Marriage of Stoner (1983) 147 CA3d 858, 864.  But in another case, although noting that the conflict has never been directly addressed in any California published decision, the court concluded that Moore is binding precedent, which provides the community with a proportional interest even when the payment of community funds was made with the knowledge and apparent consent of the spouse asserting the community interest.  See Marriage of Gowdy (1986) 178 CA3d 1228, 1230, 1234.

It is interesting to note the distinction between community funds applied to separate property and separate funds applied to community property or the other spouse’s separate property estate.  In the former situation, the rule is of judicial origin (Marriage of Moore, supra) and apportionment is the remedy.  In the latter situations, the rule is statutory (Family Code §2640) and reimbursement is the remedy.

CALL NOW TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT

321-951-9164

For more information on community property, click on one of the following links:

Community Property

California Property Declaration

Community Property Pension

Family Home

Property Apportionment

Joinder of Pension

Reimbursements

Quit Claim Deed Transmutation

Dividing Divorce Debts

Family Home Division

Divorce Reimbursements

Law Offices of Edward Misleh

Web Site Search

This disclaimer provides that any information provided on this website by The Law  Offices of Edward Misleh, APC is strictly informational and should not be interpreted or considered as legal advice.  If you have a legal concern, you should contact our office to speak with a licensed California Attorney.  Delaying to contact an attorney could result in harm to your interests.

Attorney-Client Relationship

No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. As a matter of policy, The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC.

Contacting us by telephone, email or other means, or transmitting information to us, will not establish an attorney-client relationship. The attorney-client relationship can only be established after we have determined that we are able and willing to accept the engagement and we have entered into a written engagement agreement. Until then, do not send any confidential information to us unless we specifically request it. Information communicated without such authorization may not be treated as confidential, secret or otherwise be protected from disclosure, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC will not be precluded from representing parties adverse to the sender of such information in any matter.

No Legal Advice Intended

This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems.

No Guarantee of Results

Many of the practice summaries and individual attorney biography on this website describe results obtained in matters handled for The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC clients. These descriptions are meant only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorney. They are not intended as a guarantee that the same or similar results can be obtained in every matter undertaken by our attorney; and, you should not assume that a similar result can be obtained in a legal matter of interest to you. The outcome of a particular matter can depend on a variety of factors—including the specific factual and legal circumstances, the ability of opposing counsel, and, often, unexpected developments beyond the control of any client or attorney.

Third Party Websites

As a convenience, this website may provide links to third-party websites. Such linked websites are not under the control of The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of such websites.

No Warranty or Liability

The information in this site is provided “AS-IS,” without representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any representation or warranty as to suitability, reliability, applicability, accuracy, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, result, outcome or any other matter. We do not represent or warrant that such information is or will be up-to-date, complete or accurate, or free from errors, viruses, spyware, malware, adware, worms or other malicious code, or will function to meet your requirements.

You agree that we are not liable to you or others in any way for any damages of any kind or under any theory arising from this site, your access to or use of or reliance on the information in this site, including, but not limited to, liability or damages under contract, tort or other theories or any damages caused by lost data, malicious code, denials of service (including computer crashes), business interruption or other commercial damages or losses, even if we may have been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Authorized Practice of Law

The jurisdiction in which our attorney is licensed to practice is in the State of California. The ability of our attorney to engage in any activities on behalf of a client outside that attorney’s state of licensure is subject to state statutes and professional codes and court rules. The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not seek, and this website is not intended to solicit, legal employment outside our attorney’s states of licensure that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Intellectual Property Owned by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC

Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks, photographs and other artwork, video clips, and written materials used in this site are protected by copyright laws and are owned or licensed by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. You may download information from our site for your temporary, personal, non-commercial use only. None of these items may be copied, reproduced, downloaded, posted, transmitted, broadcast or otherwise distributed in any manner without our prior written consent.

Privacy Policy
Site Map
Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.
We gladly accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express.
Copyright 2023 The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites