Cline v. Schoonover

FILES, J. This appeal involves the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that certain property had been the community property of the decedent and her predeceased husband so as to make it pass to the latter’s son under Probate Code, section 228.

The decedent, Ruth Cline, was a childless widow who died intestate. Her husband, James Cline, had died in 1942. The estate of Ruth included a residence on Victoria Avenue which had been held in joint tenancy with her husband, James, while he was alive. Respondent, Clifford Cline, who is the son of James by an earlier marriage, petitioned the court for a decree determining his interest in Ruth’s estate. Appellants, who are the blood relatives of Ruth, appeared in opposition. After a trial without a jury the court made a finding that the Victoria Avenue property had been the community property of the decedent and her predeceased spouse. Upon this finding the court decreed that said property passed by succession to respondent, Clifford Cline. The judgment awarded other property to appellants. This appeal is only from the portion of the judgment which was in favor of respondent.

If the property in question had its origin in the community property of James and Ruth, then Clifford, as the son of James, inherited it under Probate Code, section 228. If the property was originally the separate estate of James, then Clifford takes it under Probate Code, section 229.

The fact that the property was owned by Ruth and James as joint tenants at the time of James’ death is not controlling. “In determining the character of property for the purpose of applying sections 228 and 229 of the Probate Code, it is the source of its acquisition, and not the nature of its ownership immediately before death, which is controlling.” (Estate of Reizian, 36 Cal.2d 746, 749 [227 P.2d 249].) For other examples of the application of this rule, see Estate of Allie, 50 Cal.2d 794 [329 P.2d 903]; Estate of Abdale, 28 Cal.2d 587 [170 P.2d 918] ; Estate of Rattray, 13 Cal.2d 702 [91 P.2d 1042]; and Estate of Brenneman, 157 Cal.App.2d 474 [321 P.2d 86]. To avoid confusion, it is important to note that none of these cases turns upon any [154]distinction between the record title and the actual ownership, as in such cases as Siberell v. Siberell, 214 Cal. 767 [7 P.2d 1003], Distribution under sections 228 and 229 does not turn upon the title or ownership at the time death terminated the marriage, but upon the source of the property as either separate or community.