In Re Marriage of Heikes
10 Cal. 4th 1211, 899 P.2d 1349, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 155 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The retroactive application of a statute creating a right of reimbursement for separate property contributions to community property violates the Due Process Clause of the California Constitution when applied to property acquired before the statute's effective date, as it unconstitutionally impairs a vested property right established under the prior law.
Facts:
- Norman Heikes owned a home and a vacant lot as his separate property before and during his marriage to Rose H. Heikes.
- In January 1976, Norman Heikes conveyed both parcels of real property to himself and his wife as joint tenants.
- At the time of the 1976 transfer, California law presumed that a spouse's contribution of separate property to a community asset was a gift to the community, absent an agreement for reimbursement.
- The parties had no oral or written agreement that Norman Heikes would be reimbursed for his separate property contribution or that he would retain a separate property interest in the parcels.
Procedural Posture:
- The dissolution proceeding between Norman Heikes and Rose H. Heikes was commenced in 1990 in a California trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in 1992, classifying the two disputed parcels as community property without reimbursement to the husband.
- Following a subsequent decision in another case, Norman Heikes (husband) moved for a partial new trial, arguing for retroactive application of Civil Code section 4800.2 to get reimbursement.
- The trial court granted the husband's motion for a new trial.
- The Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court’s order for a new trial.
- Rose H. Heikes (wife) petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, 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 retroactive application of California Civil Code section 4800.2, which grants a spouse reimbursement for separate property contributions to community property, violate the Due Process Clause by impairing a vested property right when applied to property acquired before the statute's January 1, 1984, effective date?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
Yes, the retroactive application of California Civil Code section 4800.2 violates the Due Process Clause. Applying the reimbursement statute to property acquired before its effective date unconstitutionally deprives a spouse of a vested property right without due process of law. Following the precedent of In re Marriage of Fabian, the court determined that when Norman Heikes transferred the property in 1976, the law at the time gave Rose Heikes a vested one-half interest, treating the transfer as a gift. Retroactively applying section 4800.2 would impair this right. The state's interest in creating uniform property laws is not sufficiently compelling to justify overriding the legitimate reliance interests of spouses based on the prior law. The theoretical possibility that Rose Heikes could have sought a written waiver from her husband after the law changed in 1984 is too insubstantial to overcome the constitutional barriers, as it is highly unlikely a spouse would agree to waive a newly granted statutory right.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that statutory changes in marital property law cannot be applied retroactively if doing so would impair vested property rights acquired under a prior legal regime. The court extended the holding of In re Marriage of Fabian to cases filed after the new law's enactment, not just those pending at the time. This creates a bright-line rule that the reimbursement right established by section 4800.2 applies only to property acquired on or after its effective date of January 1, 1984, promoting predictability and protecting the settled expectations of parties in marital property transactions.
