In Re Marriage of Starr
189 Cal. App. 4th 277, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When one spouse gains an advantage in an interspousal transaction by inducing the other spouse to convey property based on a promise to restore that interest later, the failure to fulfill that promise constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, which invalidates the transaction.
Facts:
- While married, Ron Starr and Martha Starr decided to purchase a house in Glendora.
- A loan broker advised them that due to Martha's poor credit history, they could obtain a better interest rate if title was taken solely in Ron's name.
- The broker informed the couple that Martha could be added back to the title via a quitclaim deed within 45 days after the close of escrow.
- Ron expressly promised Martha that he would add her name back onto the title after the purchase was completed.
- Trusting her husband's promise, Martha executed a quitclaim deed relinquishing her interest in the house before escrow closed.
- The house was purchased using a $50,000 downpayment from Ron's separate property, while subsequent mortgage payments and property taxes were paid from community property earnings.
- Ron never added Martha's name back onto the title as he had promised.
- Ron later filed for divorce and, after initially listing the house as community property in his petition, contended at trial that it was his separate property.
Procedural Posture:
- Ron Starr filed a petition for divorce from Martha Starr in a California family law court (trial court).
- The trial court conducted a trial to determine the character of the house purchased during the marriage.
- The trial court found the house was community property and ordered Ron to convey the property to both himself and Martha as tenants in common.
- The trial court also ruled on the reimbursement of Ron's separate property downpayment and a request for overpaid child support credits.
- Ron Starr (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 husband breach his fiduciary duty to his wife when he induces her to sign a quitclaim deed to their home, thereby taking title in his name alone, by promising to restore her name to the title after the purchase and then fails to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - Rubin, Acting P. J.
Yes, the husband breached his fiduciary duty. Under Family Code section 721, spouses owe each other a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing. A transaction that advantages one spouse over the other is presumed to be the product of undue influence. While some cases of undue influence involve coercion or pressure, this case involves constructive fraud arising from the betrayal of a confidential relationship. The court distinguished this case from In re Marriage of Mathews, where the wife merely 'assumed' she would be added to the title. Here, Martha testified that Ron made an express promise to restore her to the title, and she relied on that promise. Citing the precedent set in Brison v. Brison, the court held that the betrayal of such confidence through a broken promise to reconvey is constructively fraudulent. Ron's failure to add Martha's name to the title as promised was a breach of his fiduciary duty, which constitutes undue influence and renders the quitclaim deed invalid, making the house community property.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that undue influence in interspousal transactions under Family Code § 721 encompasses not only coercive acts but also breaches of confidence, such as breaking a promise to reconvey property. It establishes a critical distinction between a spouse's mere 'assumption' and an express promise, making the latter a key factor in finding constructive fraud. The case reinforces that the fiduciary relationship between spouses requires absolute fidelity to promises made in property transactions, and a breach can serve to invalidate a deed that appears valid on its face. This precedent strengthens protections for spouses who rely on the trust inherent in the marital relationship when making financial decisions.
