Holmes v. Holmes
27 Cal. App. 546, 150 P. 793 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When property is purchased with community funds but title is taken in the wife's name alone, the statutory presumption that it is her separate property is not rebutted by evidence of the source of the funds; a second presumption arises that the husband intended to make a gift of the community property to the wife.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and her husband, Francis W. Holmes, were married.
- During the marriage, they acquired two parcels of land (Parcels 2 and 3).
- These two parcels were purchased using the joint earnings of the husband and wife.
- The written instruments conveying title for these two parcels vested title in the plaintiff's name alone.
- A separate property, Parcel 1, was deeded to both plaintiff and her husband.
- Francis W. Holmes later conveyed his one-half interest in Parcel 1 to his son, the defendant.
- Francis W. Holmes died and in his will devised all his property interests to his son, the defendant.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the defendant, her deceased husband's son, in a California trial court to quiet title to three parcels of real estate.
- The trial court found that Parcels 2 and 3 were community property and that the defendant inherited his father's one-half interest.
- The trial court entered a judgment reflecting its findings on all three properties.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 the fact that real property was purchased with community funds, standing alone, rebut the statutory presumption that property deeded to a wife is her separate estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, J.
No. The fact that property was purchased with community funds, standing alone, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the property is the wife's separate estate. Under Civil Code § 164, property vested in a wife by a written instrument is presumed to be her separate estate. While this presumption is rebuttable, merely showing the purchase was made with community funds is insufficient to overcome it. Community funds can be the subject of a gift from a husband to a wife. Therefore, when a husband uses community funds to acquire property and directs title to be vested in his wife's name, a presumption arises that he intended to make a gift of his interest in the community funds to her, making the property her separate estate. In the absence of any other evidence to contradict the intent of a gift, the statutory presumption that the property is the wife's separate estate must prevail.
Analysis:
This decision strengthens the statutory presumption under California Civil Code § 164 that property titled in a wife's name is her separate property. It establishes that the source of funds is not dispositive; instead, it creates a 'presumption of a gift' that must be independently rebutted. This ruling increases the evidentiary burden for parties seeking to characterize such property as community property, requiring them to produce evidence that affirmatively shows the husband did not intend to make a gift. The case thus provides greater security to a wife's title in property deeded to her alone during the marriage.
