Marriage of Bonvino
241 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For property acquired during a marriage using both separate and community funds, the transmutation requirements of Family Code § 852 must be met before the property can be characterized as community property and subject to the reimbursement provisions of Family Code § 2640. Absent a valid transmutation, a spouse contributing separate funds retains a proportionate separate property interest in the asset.
Facts:
- Frank Bonvino (husband) and Dawnel Bonvino (wife) married in 1993; husband owned significant separate property, including a home in Long Beach and retirement accounts.
- During the marriage, the couple purchased a home in Westlake Village for $410,000 to be their family residence.
- Husband used $90,212.50 from his separate property Schwab account for the down payment.
- Husband obtained a loan for the remainder of the purchase price in his name only, listing his employment income as the primary source for qualification.
- The grant deed for the Westlake Village property listed title in husband's name as 'FRANK A. BONVINO, a Married Man, as his sole and separate property.'
- Wife signed a quitclaim deed after husband told her it was a formality due to her bad credit and that he would add her name to the title later.
- Approximately 15 months after the purchase, husband sold his separate property Long Beach home and used the proceeds to pay off the entire loan on the Westlake Village property.
- For the 15 months prior to the loan payoff, mortgage payments were made from community funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawnel Bonvino (wife) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Frank Bonvino (husband) in the trial court.
- The trial was bifurcated to first determine the character of the Westlake Village home.
- The trial court found the Westlake Village property to be community property.
- The trial court set aside the quitclaim deed signed by the wife, finding undue influence.
- The trial court awarded husband reimbursement for his separate property contributions under Family Code § 2640, rather than a proportional ownership interest.
- After a final judgment was entered, Frank Bonvino (husband), as appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal 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 spouse's contribution of separate property funds towards the acquisition of a home during marriage result in the home being characterized as community property with a right of reimbursement under Family Code § 2640, even if the transmutation requirements of Family Code § 852 are not met?
Opinions:
Majority - Kriegler, J.
No. A spouse's contribution of separate property to acquire an asset during marriage does not convert the entire asset into community property subject only to reimbursement; instead, the transmutation requirements of Family Code § 852 must be satisfied first. Without a valid transmutation, the contributing spouse retains a proportionate separate property interest in the asset. The court reasoned that § 2640 applies to the division of the 'community estate,' meaning the property must first be characterized as community property. For separate property to become community property, it must be transmuted via an 'express declaration' in writing as required by § 852. Here, husband never signed a writing transmuting his separate funds to community property; in fact, the title documents indicated an intent to keep the property separate. Therefore, his traceable separate property contributions (the down payment and loan payoff) retained their character, establishing both a separate property interest for the husband and a community property interest in the home, which must be apportioned according to the formulas in cases like Moore and Aufmuth.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the sequential relationship between California's transmutation statute (§ 852) and its reimbursement statute (§ 2640). It establishes that transmutation is a prerequisite for reimbursement, preventing courts from treating a separate property contribution as an automatic gift or loan to the community. By requiring a valid transmutation before an asset can be deemed fully community property, the ruling strengthens the statutory writing requirement and protects a spouse's separate property investments from being unintentionally devalued into a mere dollar-for-dollar reimbursement claim without appreciation. This case directs lower courts to first perform a characterization analysis under § 852 before applying the reimbursement rules of § 2640, thereby preserving the proportional ownership interests of contributing spouses.
Unlock the full brief for Marriage of Bonvino