May v. May

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 1968 No. Civ. 32128Published

Before: Fourt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the parties intended to hold their property as community property, despite the deed being in joint tenancy, as the title was taken unwittingly or for convenience.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding that property held in joint tenancy was actually community property.
Whether the presumption of joint tenancy created by the form of the deed was sufficiently rebutted by evidence of the parties' intent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are persuaded that there was sufficient evidence in this case for the trier of fact to conclude that the parties never intended to alter or change the community character of the property”

“property acquired as joint tenants may be shown to be actually community property or the separate property of one spouse according to the intention, understanding or agreement of the parties.”

FOURT, J.

This is an appeal from that part of an interlocutory judgment of divorce which awarded to the wife as her separate property certain real property previously occupied by the parties as their home.

Plaintiff and respondent, hereafter referred to as the wife, brought an action for divorce, custody of children and their support and maintenance, attorneys’ fees and costs and an award of such of the community property as would be equitable and proper, against the defendant and appellant, hereafter referred to as the husband. The wife alleged that the real property, automobile and household furniture and furnishings were community property.

The husband answered the complaint and denied that the real property was community property and asserted that it was “property held in joint tenancy . . .” He also filed a cross-complaint for divorce and asserted that there was 11 community property of the parties, the nature and extent of which is presently unknown” to him. After a contested hearing, where both parties and others testified, the judge granted an interlocutory decree wherein among other things it was ordered that the wife was entitled to a divorce, that she have the custody of the minor children of the parties, that the husband pay $16.50 per month per child for their support and 'further that the household furniture and furnishings in the possession of the wife and the real property be assigned to the wife as her separate property, subject however to an interest of $1,000 in the husband, payable to the husband at $10 per month plus interest at the rate of 7 percent, that the automobile and the furniture and furnishings in possession of the husband be assigned to him as his separate property. The husband has appealed from that portion of the judgment which awards the real property as community property to his wife.

The testimony or the inferences which can be drawn therefrom disclose that the wife was about nineteen years of age when she was married to the husband in Los Angeles September 21, 1946, and was entirely inexperienced in business- transactions. In 1953 they bought a lot.and paid $3,000 for-it. That .money came from the earnings of each of the- parties. Later, they borrowed' $10,000 from a savings institution and had a house constructed upon the lot. It was intended that the house be occupied as a home by the parties and their children. Pay-

[670]

May v. May

AI Brief

FOURT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief