Downer v. Bramet
152 Cal. App. 3d 837, 199 Cal. Rptr. 830 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An asset transferred to a spouse from an employer, even if legally structured as a gift, is considered community property to the extent it is a remuneratory gift in recognition of services and efforts rendered during the marriage.
Facts:
- Gloria Alice Bramet Downer and George Keith Bramet were married in 1953 and separated in 1971.
- Throughout the marriage, George Bramet worked as a key employee for Chilcott Enterprises, which had no formal retirement program for its employees.
- In the mid-1960s, George told Gloria that his employer, Mr. Chilcott, intended to give him and two other employees a ranch in Oregon in lieu of retirement benefits.
- The relationship between George and Mr. Chilcott was strictly professional, with no significant social or personal interaction.
- In August 1972, after the parties' separation, Mr. Chilcott deeded a one-third interest in the W-4 Ranch to George and two other employees.
- George did not disclose his interest in the ranch when he and Gloria executed their marital settlement agreement in December 1972.
- Mr. Chilcott testified that the conveyance was a gift because he did not need the money and simply felt like giving the property away.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria Downer (former wife) filed a complaint against George Bramet (former husband) in the trial court, seeking determination of her community property rights in the ranch and alleging fraud.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a judgment of nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit and entered judgment in his favor.
- Gloria Downer, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of nonsuit to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an asset, legally structured as a gift from an employer to a spouse, considered community property if it was given in recognition of services rendered during the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaufman, J.
Yes. Although the conveyance of the ranch interest was legally a gift, it is characterized as community property to the extent it was given in recognition of the husband's services during the marriage. The court's reasoning is that the characterization of property as separate or community is not determined solely by the legal form of the transfer. While a gift is typically separate property under Civil Code section 5108, property acquired through the labor, skill, and effort of a spouse during marriage is community property. Here, there was substantial evidence that the transfer was a 'remuneratory gift' for the former husband’s decades of loyal and valuable service, not a gift based on personal affection. Factors supporting this conclusion include the former husband's long-term employment, his role as the employer's 'righthand man,' the lack of a company retirement plan, and the absence of any social or personal relationship between the employer and employee. Therefore, to the extent the ranch interest was a recognition of services rendered during the marriage, it is community property, and the trial court's nonsuit on this issue was improper. The nonsuit on the fraud claim, however, was appropriate because the former wife suffered no independent damages; her remedy lies in recovering her share of the community property.
Analysis:
This case establishes the important principle that the legal form of a transaction, such as labeling it a 'gift,' does not control its characterization in community property law. It introduces the concept of a 'remuneratory gift' from an employer, which is treated as earnings if it is primarily a reward for past services rendered during the marriage. This decision requires courts to look beyond the surface of a transaction to its substance and intent, preventing a spouse from using the 'gift' label to convert what is essentially deferred compensation into separate property. The case provides a framework for analyzing employer-provided benefits that are not part of a formal contract or pension plan, ensuring a more equitable division of assets earned through marital labor.
