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
    • Sacramento Attorney Blog
  • Resources
    • Forms
    • Sacramento Attorney Blog
    • Our Office
    • Website Search
    • Site Map
  • The Law Offices
  • Contact Us

-

Home » Areas of Practice » Community Property » Dividing Property

Dividing Property

Posted on October 25, 2019November 12, 2019 by edmisleh

Dividing Property

Dividing property is undertaken during your divorce.  To The process of dividing property begins by first characterizing the property that you and your spouse own.  Property is characterize as either separate property or community property.  Once characterized, you and your spouse can then decide on the particular items each of you is to get.


Dividing Property with Commingled Assets

When community funds are used to make payments to reduce the principal balance of a separate property mortgage, the community acquires an apportionable ownership interest in the mortgaged property.  The interest consists of a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement for those payments and an interest in the appreciation of the separate property.  Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 C3d 366;  Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 CA3d 426.  This is often referred to as the Moore-Marsden doctrine or rule.

The court in Bono v Clark (2002) 103 CA4th 1409, 1422, extended the Moore-Marsden rule to community expenditures for improvements to the owner’s separate property.  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.

Dividing Property Acquired During Marriage

Dividing property is done to determine the community interest in an asset.  When property is acquired during marriage it is characterized as community property.  Community property is often property acquired in joint form.  In some instances, however, property acquired during marriage will be separate property, e.g., title acquired in name of one spouse alone, purchased with primarily that spouse’s separate funds, and substantial evidence suggesting that any community property funds used were intended as gift from non-title-holding spouse.  Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 C3d 808, 817.  See also Marriage of Ruelas (2007) 154 CA4th 339, 345 (wife who took title to condominium in own name did so for benefit of her parents who funded acquisition (Family Code §760 was rebutted, resulting trust arose for parents, and husband’s only remedy was nominal community property reimbursement).

When separate property is acquired during marriage with a down payment from separate funds and a loan based on community assets, apportionment of separate and community interests in the property is required.  The separate property acquires an interest in the ratio that the down payment bears to the purchase price.  The community property acquires an interest in the ratio that the community loan bears to the purchase price.  Remember that any appreciation must be apportioned accordingly.  The following is an example:

Assume that property is purchased for $100,000.  One spouse pays the entire down payment of $20,000 from separate funds.  The remaining $80,000 coming from a loan based on community credit.  The result is a separate property interest of 20 percent (the ratio of the down payment to the purchase price) and a community property interest of 80 percent (the ratio of the loan to the purchase price).  At the time of trial, the fair market value of the house is $175,000 (thus the appreciation is $75,000) and the community has reduced the loan by $2,000. The separate property’s share of the equity in the house is:

Down payment of $20,000 and 20% of appreciation of $75,000 equals $15,000; total separate property equity is $35,000.

The community property’s share of the equity is:  80% of appreciation equaling $60,000 and loan payments of $2,000; total community property equity is $62,000.


Reimbursement

Dividing property may result in a reimbursement to one spouse.  You or your spouse is entitled to a reimbursement for contributions to the acquisition of community property if you can trace the contributions to a separate property source.  This assumes that you have not waived the right to reimbursement in writing.  See Family Code §2640;  Marriage of Fabian (1986) 41 C3d 440, 444.  In Marriage of Walrath (1998) 17 C4th 907, 918, the definition of “property” in Family Code §2640 was found to include not only the original community property to which separate property had been contributed, but also any subsequent property acquired with the proceeds from refinancing the original community property.  Note however, that Family Code §2640 does not apply to assets that have not been transmuted from separate to community property status.  Marriage of Bonvino (2015) 241 CA4th 1411, 1432 (transmutation requirements of Family Code §852 were not met so as to change to character of husband’s separate property interest in home to community property;  therefore reimbursement under Family Code §2640 did not apply);  Marriage of Koester (1999) 73 CA4th 1032, 1037 (incorporation of husband’s separate property business was not acquisition of community property; trial court should have applied Pereira formula instead of Family Code §2640).


Rebutting Community Property Presumption

For purposes of dividing property in a dissolution or legal separation, any property acquired by the parties in joint form during marriage, including tenancy in common, joint tenancy, or community property is presumed to be community property.  See Family Code §2581.  The presumption may be rebutted only by either a clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property or proof of a written agreement between the parties that the property is separate property.  Family Code §2581. Marriage of Neal (1984) 153 CA3d 117, 124.

Not every such writing will be sufficient to overcome the presumption.  Marriage of Cairo (1988) 204 CA3d 1255, 1261 (quitclaim deed resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations not effective to rebut presumption).  When the community property presumption is rebutted, the property is separate property, subject to any applicable community property interest under Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 C3d 808, 816 (see §5.26).  When the community property presumption cannot be rebutted, a spouse who made separate property contributions to the acquisition of the property may nevertheless be entitled to reimbursement.  Family Code §2640.  See Marriage of Walrath (1998) 17 C4th 907, 918;  Marriage of Weaver (2005) 127 CA4th 858.


Dividing Property and Transmutations

When a spouse places separate property in joint title form, the transmutation requirements of Family Code §852 must be satisfied before the joint title presumption of Family Code §2581 applies.  Thus, a partnership modification agreement that simply added a wife’s name along with her husband’s as one-third partners was insufficiently clear to change the character of the husband’s existing separate property interest in the partnership.  Marriage of Lafkas (2015) 237 CA4th 921, 940.

Property owned as separate property before marriage and that is transmuted to joint title during the marriage is subject not only to the community property presumption of Family Code §2581 but also to the fiduciary duty provisions of Family Code §721.  See Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 CA4th 991.  When evidence is offered that one spouse has been disadvantaged by the other in any interspousal property transaction, under the rationale of Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 CA4th 277, the Evidence Code §662 presumption from form of title cannot be applied.  Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 CA4th 991, 997.  Thus, if the spouse who had owned the property before marriage alleges undue influence, the burden shifts to the spouse who was put on title to establish that the transfer was freely and voluntarily made with full knowledge of the transaction’s effect on the separate property.  Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 CA4th 1509, 1520; Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 CA4th 624, 632.


CALL NOW TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A FREE CONSULTATION

916-443-1267

For more information on California Community Property, click on one of the following links:

Reimbursements

Divorce Reimbursements

Your Community Interest

Community Interest

Community Property and Quit Claim Deed

Family Home

Quit Claim Deeds Transmuting Property

Premarital Funds Used For Down-payments

Joinder of Pension

Community Property Pension

Dividing Divorce Debts

Excess Support Payments, sole proprietorship, Dividing property, Paying Spousal Support, California Financial Disclosure Waiver, Community Interest Pension, Retirement plans, Spousal support questions, Community Property Asset, former spouse retirement plan, Support wage assignments, Reimbursements, Dividing divorce debts, Attorney fees, Community Property, community interest, property apportionment, down payment

The Law Office of Edward Misleh

615 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(between F and G Streets)

Law Office Phone
916-443-1267

Law Office Fax
916-266-9403

Free Consultation

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.
Visit Us on Facebook
Click Here to Visit Us on Twitter
Click Here to Visit Us on LinkedIn
We gladly accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express.
Copyright 2019 The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites