Vieux v. Vieux
251 P. 640, 80 Cal. App. 222, 1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 72 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When property is acquired through an installment contract by one spouse before marriage, and community funds are used for payments after marriage, the property's character is apportioned between separate and community property in proportion to the contributions made by each estate.
Facts:
- Prior to their marriage, a man (plaintiff) and Coralyn A. Vieux (defendant) viewed a parcel of real property, lot 24, and agreed it was a desirable purchase.
- Before the marriage, the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the property and made an initial payment of $280 from his separate funds.
- Immediately upon entering the contract, the plaintiff took possession of the property.
- After the marriage, the couple used $553.68 of community funds to make payments for principal, interest, and taxes on the property.
- During the marriage, the plaintiff received a $2,200 bonus for executing an oil lease on the property.
- The plaintiff used the $2,200 oil lease bonus to pay the remaining balance of the property's purchase price.
- After paying for the property in full, the plaintiff deeded the property to his parents, Aristide and Stephanus Vieux, for no consideration, with the intent of defeating any potential claim his wife had to it.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff husband filed a suit for divorce against the defendant wife, Coralyn A. Vieux, in the trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment finding that the real property at issue was the husband's separate property and that Coralyn A. Vieux had no interest in it.
- The trial court awarded Coralyn A. Vieux the value of other community property, attorney's fees, and alimony.
- Coralyn A. Vieux, as appellant, appealed from the part of the trial court's judgment that denied her any interest in the real property to the District 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 property purchased by a spouse under an installment contract before marriage become community property to the extent that community funds are used to pay the purchase price after marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Houser, J.
Yes. When community funds are used to make payments on property that one spouse began purchasing before marriage, the community acquires a proportional ownership interest in the property. A strict rule classifying property based solely on the inception of title would lead to unjust consequences, particularly with modern installment contracts. It would allow a spouse to secure a valuable asset with a small separate property down payment and then use community funds for the bulk of the purchase price while retaining the asset as entirely separate. The confidential relationship between spouses and the principles of equity demand that ownership be measured by the direct contributions of each estate. Therefore, the community is entitled to a share in the property proportional to its contribution to the purchase price.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the rule of proportional ownership, or apportionment, in California for assets purchased over a period spanning before and during a marriage. It rejects the more rigid "inception of title" doctrine, which would have classified the entire property as separate based on when the purchase contract was signed. This decision created a more equitable framework for dividing property in divorces by recognizing that the community estate should share in the value it helps create. This principle of apportionment has become a cornerstone of California community property law, affecting how courts characterize and divide assets like real estate, retirement benefits, and stock options acquired over time with mixed funds.
