In Re Marriage of Lucas
614 P.2d 285, 27 Cal. 3d 808, 166 Cal. Rptr. 853 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent an agreement or understanding to the contrary, a spouse's contribution of separate property to acquire a single-family residence titled in joint tenancy is presumed to be a gift to the community, and the property is treated as community property upon dissolution.
Facts:
- Brenda G. Lucas and Gerald E. Lucas married in March 1964.
- In September 1964, Brenda received a distribution from a trust, which was her separate property.
- In November 1968, the couple purchased a house for $23,300, taking title as 'Gerald E. Lucas and Brenda G. Lucas, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants.'
- Brenda used $6,351.57 from her separate property trust for the down payment on the house.
- Brenda later used an additional $2,962 from her separate funds for improvements to the property.
- The couple used community funds to make payments on the mortgage loan principal and interest, and to pay property taxes.
- Brenda testified she did not intend to make a gift of her separate funds, but she never discussed this intention with Gerald.
- The couple separated in December 1976.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon the dissolution of the marriage of Brenda and Gerald Lucas, the trial court entered an interlocutory judgment dividing their property.
- The trial court found that the family residence, though titled in joint tenancy, was partially the separate property of Brenda due to her contribution of separate funds for the down payment and improvements.
- The trial court calculated and awarded Brenda a separate property interest of 75.58% in the home's equity, with the remaining 24.42% deemed community property.
- Gerald Lucas, the husband, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Supreme Court, contesting the characterization of the residence.
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 a spouse's contribution of separate property to the acquisition of a single-family residence, titled in the names of both spouses as joint tenants, rebut the statutory presumption that the residence is community property in the absence of an agreement or understanding between the parties to maintain a separate property interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Manuel, J.
No. A spouse's contribution of separate property to a residence held in joint tenancy does not, by itself, overcome the presumption that the residence is community property; an agreement or understanding between the parties is required. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind Civil Code § 5110 was to create a specific and strong presumption that a family home held in joint tenancy is community property for purposes of dissolution. This presumption, arising from the express form of title, requires a greater showing to rebut than the general presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property. Merely tracing the source of funds to separate property is insufficient, as is a hidden or uncommunicated intent to retain a separate interest. The act of taking title jointly is inconsistent with an intent to maintain a separate interest and protects the expectations of the non-contributing spouse. Since there was no evidence of an agreement or understanding that Brenda would retain a separate property interest, the presumption was not rebutted.
Analysis:
This case established the influential 'Lucas rule,' which holds that taking title as joint tenants transmutes separate property contributions into community property, absent an express agreement to the contrary. This bright-line rule prioritized the form of title over the source of funds, strengthening the community property presumption for the family home. The decision's impact was significant enough to prompt a legislative response; California's 'anti-Lucas' statutes (now Family Code § 2640) were enacted to create a statutory right of reimbursement for separate property contributions, thereby partially abrogating the holding of this case regarding reimbursement.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Marriage of Lucas