Veronin v. Veronin

ASHBURN, J. pro tem.

*

Defendant appeals

from

an interlocutory judgment of divorce granted to plaintiff wife on the ground of cruelty. The only contention urged on his

[299]

behalf is that the court erred in adjudging the home, which stood of record in both names as joint tenants, to be community property and in awarding it to plaintiff alone.

In her complaint respondent alleged the residence to be community estate and added this: “Although the above described real estate is held in joint tenancy by the parties, they and each of them had heretofore agreed that the same should always retain its community property status, in addition to which said real property was acquired by the parties with community funds and through their joint efforts subsequent to their marriage. ’ ’ Defendant alleged and contended that the property was in fact owned in joint tenancy. The court found the quoted allegation to be true and awarded the home to plaintiff as her sole and separate property. Appellant claims that parol evidence was not admissible to contradict the terms of the deed and that, in any event, the evidence is insufficient to support the finding.

While a deed to spouses as joint tenants raises a presumption that they intended title to be so vested

(Gudelj

v.

Gudelj,

41 Cal.2d 202, 212 [259 P.2d 656]; P

erkins

v.

West,

122 Cal.App.2d 585, 589 [265 P.2d 538]), it is now thoroughly settled that parol evidence is admissible to show that they had a mutual intention that the property should in fact be acquired and held as a community asset.

(Gudelj

V.

Gudelj,