 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Roach11/13/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Colin Roach (Husband) appeals from that part of a judgment of dissolution awarding three real properties to his former wife, respondent Gwendolyn Gunn Roach (Wife), as her sole and separate property. The properties were purchased during the marriage. In 1992, Husband transferred the properties to Wife as her sole and separate property. Husband contends the family law court erroneously applied a presumption, based on the form of title, that the properties were Wife's separate property and required Husband to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were community property. Husband contends the family law court should have applied a presumption that the properties were community property because they were acquired during marriage and a presumption that the transaction transferring the properties to Wife was unfair, both of which would have placed the burden of proof on Wife. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Marriage
In 1986, Husband owned a condominium he had purchased for $33,000 in 1979. He had a bank account at Founders Savings and Loan Association and owed undergraduate and graduate school student loans. Wife owned a three-unit property on 102nd Street in Los Angeles she had purchased in 1978 and property on Crenshaw Boulevard purchased in 1981.
On June 28, 1986, Husband and Wife entered into an antenuptial agreement. The parties agreed that the condominium would remain Husband's separate property "to use and dispose of as he sees fit and as if no marriage had been entered into." They also agreed the Crenshaw Boulevard and 102nd Street properties would remain Wife's separate property "to use and dispose of as she [sees] fit and as if no marriage had been entered into."
Husband and Wife married on July 3, 1986. They lived in two of the three units on the 102nd Street property. The monthly mortgage payment for the property was $358.22 and the tenant living in the third unit paid $625. The rent from the tenant paid all the expenses of the property.
During the parties' marriage, Wife managed the community funds, paid the bills, reviewed bank statements, maintained necessary documents, and prepared the parties' tax returns. The parties filed separate tax returns under the filing status of "single." Wife had more than one separate bank account and the parties had a joint account for community bills. Husband's bank account at Founders Savings became a joint account. Wife worked intermittently. She worked or drew unemployment benefits for part of almost every year of the marriage.
Wife's brother and sister-in-law owned property in Victorville. They were divorcing and planned to abandon the property. In March 1987, Wife paid them $3,000 or $4,000 from her separate property. On March 10, 1987, the passbook for the Founders Savings account showed a balance of 66 cents. Wife prepared a grant deed to transfer the title to the property from her brother and his wife to herself and Husband as joint tenants. She arranged to take title in joint tenancy because she felt she should include her new husband in her purchase. On March 13, 1987, Husband and Wife took title to the Victorville property subject to the existing mortgage of $75,000.
On October 1, 1987, Husband sold his condominium for $64,000 and received net proceeds of approxim
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|