In Re Marriage of Benson
32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471, 116 P.3d 1152, 36 Cal. 4th 1096 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of part performance does not create an exception to Family Code section 852(a)'s requirement that a transmutation of marital property be made in writing by an express declaration. Extrinsic evidence, such as a party's performance of an alleged oral agreement, cannot be used to prove that a transmutation occurred.
Facts:
- Douglas Benson and Diane L. Benson married in 1983.
- During the marriage, Douglas participated in an employee stock ownership plan and a 401(k) retirement plan, which were community property.
- Diane's father gifted the couple a 100% ownership interest in the Santa Barbara house where they lived.
- At her father's request, Diane asked Douglas to agree to convey the house to an irrevocable trust of which she was the beneficiary.
- In late 1996 and early 1997, Douglas and Diane both signed grant deeds transferring their community property interest in the house to Diane's trust.
- Douglas alleged that he agreed to sign the deeds in exchange for Diane's oral promise to waive her community property interest in his retirement accounts.
- Diane allegedly promised to sign a writing confirming this transmutation of the retirement accounts to Douglas's separate property but never did so.
- Diane denied ever making a promise to waive her interest in Douglas's retirement accounts.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane L. Benson (Wife) petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in the trial court.
- At trial, Douglas Benson (Husband) argued that an oral agreement had transmuted his community property retirement accounts into his separate property.
- The trial court found in favor of Husband, ruling that his act of deeding the couple's house to Wife's trust constituted part performance of the oral agreement, creating an exception to the statutory writing requirement.
- Wife appealed to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the part performance exception.
- Wife then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of California, which was granted.
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 doctrine of part performance create an exception to Family Code section 852(a)'s requirement that a transmutation of marital property be made in writing by an express declaration?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No, the doctrine of part performance does not create an exception to the strict writing requirement of Family Code section 852(a). For a transmutation of property between spouses to be valid, it must be made in writing by an express declaration from the adversely affected spouse, and this statutory requirement cannot be satisfied by inferring an agreement from a party's conduct. The court's reasoning, grounded in the precedent of Estate of MacDonald, is that the Legislature enacted section 852(a) to reject the former 'easy transmutation' rules that allowed oral agreements and implications from conduct to change the character of marital property. The statute's purpose was to increase certainty, prevent perjury, and reduce litigation. Allowing a part performance exception, common to the general statute of frauds, would undermine these goals by reintroducing the need for courts to consider unreliable extrinsic evidence to determine intent. The stricter formality of section 852(a) reflects the unique fiduciary relationship between spouses and is not analogous to the rules governing premarital or arm's-length commercial contracts.
Concurring - Moreno, J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusion. While a potential conflict may exist between section 852(a)'s strict formality and section 721(b)'s fiduciary duty, especially where one spouse is unjustly enriched by relying on the statute to invalidate an oral promise, that issue is not present here. Douglas Benson settled his claims regarding the conveyance of the house, so he cannot now claim he was inequitably disadvantaged by that transaction. The narrow issue is whether part performance is an exception to section 852(a), and the majority correctly concludes it is not. The court does not need to address what remedies might be available to a spouse who is genuinely harmed by an illusory oral promise to transmute property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict-formality requirement for interspousal property transmutations established in Estate of MacDonald. It explicitly rejects attempts to import equitable exceptions like part performance from the general statute of frauds into family law, emphasizing that the legislative intent behind § 852(a) was to prioritize certainty and prevent litigation over informal agreements. The ruling reinforces that a valid transmutation cannot be found without a written document that explicitly states on its face that the character or ownership of a specific property is being changed. This creates a bright-line rule that promotes judicial economy, though potentially at the cost of individual fairness in cases where one spouse detrimentally relies on the other's oral promise.
