In Re Marriage of Haines
39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 673, 95 Daily Journal DAR 3597, 33 Cal. App. 4th 277 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the common law presumption that legal title reflects beneficial ownership (Evidence Code § 662) conflicts with the presumption of undue influence that arises from an interspousal transaction unfairly benefiting one spouse (Family Code § 721), the presumption of undue influence prevails in marital dissolution proceedings.
Facts:
- Clarence Haines held sole title to the Teebird Lane residence before his marriage to Judy A. Haines in 1981.
- On November 25, 1983, to secure a refinance loan, Clarence conveyed the residence by quitclaim deed to himself and Judy as joint tenants.
- In October 1987, during a period of marital deterioration, Clarence asked Judy to sign a quitclaim deed transferring her interest in the residence back to him.
- On October 22, 1987, en route to a credit union, Clarence stopped at a notary and told Judy he would not co-sign a necessary car loan for her unless she signed the quitclaim deed.
- Believing she had no alternative, Judy signed the quitclaim deed, which conveyed her interest in the residence to Clarence as his sole and separate property.
- On April 28, 1988, while the couple was contemplating another property purchase, Clarence signed a grant deed conveying the house back to himself and Judy as joint tenants.
- The couple separated on March 6, 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- Judy Haines filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Clarence Haines in the San Diego Superior Court, the trial court of first instance.
- At trial, the court considered the validity of a 1987 quitclaim deed Judy signed, which transferred her interest in the family home to Clarence.
- The trial court applied Evidence Code § 662, which required Judy to rebut the presumption of title by clear and convincing evidence.
- The trial court found that Judy had proven duress and undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence, but not by the higher clear and convincing standard.
- Consequently, the trial court upheld the 1987 quitclaim deed, characterized the home as Clarence's separate property at that moment, and granted him reimbursement for his separate property contribution upon the dissolution.
- Judy Haines, as the appellant, appealed the portion of the judgment granting reimbursement to the Court of Appeal, with Clarence Haines as the appellee.
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 common law presumption in favor of title, codified in Evidence Code section 662, which requires clear and convincing evidence for rebuttal, apply in marital dissolution proceedings when it conflicts with the presumption of undue influence arising from a transaction between spouses?
Opinions:
Majority - Haller, J.
No, application of Evidence Code section 662 is improper when it conflicts with the presumption of undue influence that emanates from the confidential relationship between spouses. The court reasoned that there is an irreconcilable conflict between two legal presumptions: the presumption favoring title stability (§ 662) and the presumption that an interspousal transaction that advantages one spouse is the product of undue influence (under former Civil Code § 5103, now Family Code § 721). Public policy requires protecting the unique, confidential nature of the marital relationship. Applying § 662's higher 'clear and convincing' burden of proof on the disadvantaged spouse would abrogate the specific protections the legislature intended for spouses. The court held that the presumption of undue influence, being more specific to the marital context, must control over the more general presumption of title. Since the trial court found Judy had proven duress by a preponderance of the evidence, the quitclaim deed should have been set aside.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear hierarchy of presumptions in California family law, prioritizing the protection of the marital fiduciary relationship over the general policy of title stability. It significantly strengthens the position of a spouse challenging an interspousal property transaction by shifting the burden of proof to the advantaged spouse to demonstrate the transaction's fairness. By preventing the application of Evidence Code § 662's high 'clear and convincing' evidentiary standard in such conflicts, the ruling makes it less difficult for a party to prove claims of duress or undue influence. The case serves as a key precedent ensuring that the substance of interspousal dealings is scrutinized for fairness, rather than relying solely on the form of legal title.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Marriage of Haines