 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevens v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
. In order to determine whether this was proper, we need to review the information we have concerning Mrs. Suryanto's acquisition of the property. By grant deed recorded October 23, 1987 as instrument number 87-592389 in the official records of the Orange County, California Recorder, The Fieldstone Company conveyed the property in question to "Karso Suryanto and Khim L. K. Suryanto, husband and wife as joint tenants." The question is whether the property interests the Suryantos acquired pursuant to that deed were joint tenancy interests or, despite the wording on the deed, community property interests.
The answer to that question is outcome determinative, inasmuch as joint tenancy property is the separate property of the husband and the wife, whereas community property, by definition, is otherwise. As explained in Estate of Mitchell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1385, "A husband and wife may co-own property as joint tenants, tenants in common, or community property. [Citation.] Property cannot be held both as community property and in either a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common at the same time. [Citations.] Accordingly, each spouse's interest in a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common is his or her own separate property. [Citations.]"
In order to determine whether the property interests acquired were in actuality joint tenancy interests or community property interests, we must look to the law in effect at the time of acquisition. (See In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 591 [status of property is determined at time of acquisition].) Although neither party mentions the statute, former Civil Code section 5110, as amended effective 1984, controls. The general rule expressed in that statute read: " ll real property situated in this state and all personal property wherever situated acquired during the marriage by a married person while domiciled in this state . . . is community property . . . ." (Stats. 1983, ch. 342, ยง 3, pp. 1538-1539.) Although former Civil Code section 5110 contained certain exceptions to the general rule, Anaheim has not shown us that any of those exceptions should apply.
Instead, Anaheim argues that current California statutes create a presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property, but also states that the presumption is rebutted when husband and wife take title as joint tenants. It cites In re Summers (9th Cir. 2003) 332 F.3d 1240 in support of this proposition. However, that case did not address the interpretation of former Civil Code section 5110, and thus, is not helpful. Anaheim also cites Estate of Petersen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1742, which addressed one of the exceptions to former Civil Code section 5110. But Estate of Petersen pertained to property purchased before 1975 and it is not clear whether the exception to the rule, as addressed in that case, applied to property purchases made after 1974. The burden is on Anaheim, as the appellant, to demonstrate error. (Del Real v. City of Riverside, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 766.) Anaheim has not met this burden, inasmuch as it has not cited any case applying former Civil Code section 5110 to property purchases made after 1974. It has not shown us that under former Civil Code section 5110, in the context of post-1974 real property purchases, the community property presumption was rebutted when the parties took title in joint tenancy form. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court was correct in its implied finding that the Suryantos acquired the property as their community property. (See In re Marriage of Tucker (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 128, 132 [trial court findings as to separate or community nature of property binding on appellate court when supported by substantial evidence]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|