Ettefagh v. Ettefagh
2007 D.A.R. 7273, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of proof required to rebut the Family Code section 760 presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property is a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts:
- Semrin Ettefagh and Vahid Ettefagh married in 1972 and later moved to Iran.
- During the marriage, four parcels of real estate in California were acquired and title was placed in Vahid's name.
- The first property, Santa Ana Court, was deeded to Vahid on May 4, 1987; Vahid's father, Hashem Ettefagh, provided the purchase funds.
- The second property, Larkspur Shopping Center, was transferred to Vahid and his sister on April 27, 1990; Hashem again testified he provided the funds.
- A third property, "Santa Rosa small," was conveyed to Vahid on August 5, 1992, with Hashem providing the downpayment.
- A fourth property, "Santa Rosa large," was granted to Vahid by Hashem on January 23, 1989.
- Vahid testified that neither his personal funds nor community funds were used to purchase any of the four California properties.
- On March 8, 1994, Vahid conveyed his interest in all four California properties to his father, Hashem.
Procedural Posture:
- Semrin Ettefagh filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Vahid Ettefagh in the trial court.
- The parties stipulated to the joinder of Vahid’s father, Hashem Ettefagh, as a claimant.
- After an 18-day trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision.
- The trial court found that the California properties were Vahid’s separate property, ruling that the community property presumption was rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence showing they were gifts from Hashem.
- Semrin Ettefagh (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, challenging, among other things, the standard of proof applied by the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does rebutting the Family Code section 760 community property presumption, by showing the property was acquired as a separate property gift, require proof by clear and convincing evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, Acting P. J.
No. A party seeking to overcome the Family Code section 760 community property presumption must establish the separate nature of the property by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence. The default standard of proof in civil cases is preponderance of the evidence, as stated in Evidence Code section 115, and this standard should apply unless constitutional, statutory, or decisional law requires a higher burden. While past case law has been inconsistent on this issue, an analysis of the interests at stake supports the preponderance standard. A dispute over the characterization of property involves purely economic interests where both spouses share an equal risk of an erroneous determination. Unlike cases involving fundamental rights (e.g., termination of parental rights), where a clear and convincing standard is used to protect the party with more at stake, property disputes in a dissolution are symmetrical; one spouse's loss is the other's gain. Therefore, the risk of error should be shared equally between the parties, which is achieved by the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant and previously muddled area of California family law by definitively establishing the preponderance of the evidence standard for rebutting the general community property presumption. It resolves conflicts in prior case law, some of which had suggested a higher 'clear and convincing' standard was required. The court's policy-based analysis, focusing on the equal economic risks borne by each spouse, provides a clear framework for future cases. This ruling simplifies the evidentiary burden for a spouse claiming separate property and ensures that characterization disputes are treated consistently with other civil matters not involving fundamental rights.
