In Re Marriage of Bouquet
16 Cal.3d 583, 128 Cal. Rptr. 427, 546 P.2d 1371 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative amendment to a marital property statute may be applied retroactively to property rights acquired before its effective date, provided the legislature intended such application and it is justified by a sufficiently important state interest, such as remedying a patently unfair and unconstitutional law.
Facts:
- Harry Bouquet and Ima Nell Bouquet married on June 9, 1941.
- The couple separated on March 2, 1969.
- Under the law existing at the time of separation, the earnings and accumulations of a wife living separate from her husband were her separate property, while the husband's earnings remained community property.
- Ima Nell Bouquet petitioned for dissolution of the marriage on April 20, 1971.
- On March 4, 1972, before a final judgment was entered in the dissolution, an amendment to Civil Code section 5118 took effect, making the earnings and accumulations of both spouses while living separate and apart their separate property.
Procedural Posture:
- Ima Nell Bouquet filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in a California superior court (trial court).
- After the amendment to Civil Code § 5118 took effect, Harry Bouquet amended his response, arguing his earnings since the date of separation were his separate property.
- The trial court rejected Harry's argument, ruling that the amendment did not apply retroactively and that his earnings were community property until the amendment's effective date.
- The trial court entered an interlocutory judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the property according to its ruling.
- Harry Bouquet (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the property division to the California Supreme 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 the 1971 amendment to California Civil Code section 5118, which classifies a husband's earnings while living separate and apart as separate property, apply retroactively to earnings acquired before the amendment's effective date in cases where a final judgment has not yet been entered?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, the amendment to Civil Code section 5118 applies retroactively. Although statutes are generally presumed to operate prospectively, this presumption is overcome where legislative intent for retroactivity is evident. The court found such intent based on the new law's purpose to cure the prior law's patent unconstitutionality, which blatantly discriminated based on sex, and from legislative history, specifically a letter from the bill's author entered into the Senate Journal expressing intent for retroactive application. Furthermore, retroactive application does not violate due process because it is a proper exercise of the state's police power to ensure the equitable distribution of marital property and to abrogate rights derived from a 'patently unfair former law.' The state's paramount interest in fairly dissolving the marital relationship, as established in Addison v. Addison, justifies the impairment of the wife's vested property right.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that vested property rights within the marital context are not absolute and can be altered by retroactive legislation under the state's police power. The case is significant for establishing that curing a constitutional defect and remedying gender-based discrimination constitutes a sufficiently important state interest to justify such retroactivity. It also provides guidance on discerning legislative intent for retroactivity when a statute is silent, giving weight to extrinsic evidence like legislative history and the problem the statute was designed to solve. The ruling reinforces the state's broad authority to regulate and redefine marital property rights to ensure fairness and equity upon dissolution, even if it disrupts prior expectations.
