Estate of Bibb
104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 415, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1708, 87 Cal.App.4th 461 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Family Code § 852(a), a valid transmutation of property requires a writing with an express declaration of a change in ownership, which is satisfied by a standard grant deed using operative words of transfer like 'grant', but is not satisfied by an unsigned DMV registration printout that lacks a clear expression of intent to transfer ownership by the adversely affected spouse.
Facts:
- Everett L. Bibb, Jr. owned an apartment building in Berkeley as his separate property, acquired during his first marriage.
- On January 29, 1991, while single, Everett purchased a Rolls Royce automobile and registered it in his name alone.
- In December of 1992, Everett married his second wife, Evelyn Bibb.
- In 1994, Everett applied for a loan secured by the Berkeley property but was unable to qualify based on his own credit.
- To qualify for the loan using Evelyn's credit, Everett signed a grant deed on January 24, 1995, conveying the property from himself to "himself and Evelyn, his wife as joint tenants."
- In 1995, after their marriage, the Rolls Royce was reregistered in the names of "Everett or Evelyn."
- Everett died intestate on September 6, 1995.
- Following Everett's death, Evelyn took title to the Berkeley property and reregistered the Rolls Royce in her name alone.
Procedural Posture:
- Evelyn Bibb filed a petition for probate of the estate of her deceased husband, Everett L. Bibb, Jr.
- Dozier Bibb, Everett's son, filed a petition in the probate proceeding to establish the estate's ownership of a Berkeley property and a Rolls Royce.
- The trial court heard Dozier's petition and issued a statement of decision denying it.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Evelyn, finding that the assets were not part of the probate estate.
- Dozier Bibb, as appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of California. Evelyn Bibb is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a grant deed signed by one spouse transferring their separate property interest in real property to both spouses as joint tenants satisfy the “express declaration” requirement of Family Code section 852, subdivision (a)? 2. Does an unsigned DMV computer printout reflecting a vehicle's reregistration from one spouse's name to both spouses' names satisfy the requirements for a valid transmutation under Family Code section 852, subdivision (a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, J.
1. Yes. A grant deed that uses the operative word 'grant' to convey a separate property interest from one spouse to both spouses as joint tenants contains a clear and unambiguous expression of intent to transfer the property on its face, thereby satisfying the 'express declaration' requirement for a valid transmutation under Family Code § 852(a). 2. No. An unsigned DMV printout showing a change in registration does not satisfy the requirements for a valid transmutation because it is not a writing 'made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected' and it does not contain a clear expression of intent to transfer ownership. Reasoning: The court, guided by Estate of MacDonald, held that § 852(a) requires a writing that enables courts to validate transmutations without resorting to extrinsic evidence. For the real property, the deed used the word 'grant,' which is the historically operative word for transferring interests in real property. This language on the face of the signed document was a sufficient 'express declaration' of Everett's intent to change the property's ownership. For the vehicle, however, the unsigned DMV printout lacked any language of transfer and, critically, was not subscribed by Everett, the spouse whose separate property interest was adversely affected. The general presumption of joint tenancy for vehicles registered with 'or' under the Vehicle Code does not override the specific requirements of Family Code § 852(a).
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'express declaration' standard established in Estate of MacDonald for transmuting property between spouses. It provides a bright-line rule: formal documents like grant deeds that contain explicit words of conveyance ('grant') are sufficient, even without using the word 'transmutation.' Conversely, it demonstrates that informal administrative records, like an unsigned DMV printout, are insufficient because they lack both a signature and clear donative language. The decision reinforces the legislative intent to require unambiguous, written proof of intent to prevent litigation and perjury regarding alleged oral or implied transmutations, creating a clear safe harbor for real property transfers via deed while rejecting less formal methods for other assets.
