community property

Duke

  1. spouses have equal interest in the home, but the divorce court can impose a deferment on the sale of the family home, in the interests of providing continuity and stability to the children. In reality, such Duke orders have not fared well because of the lack of other community assets to support the out-spouse

Estes

  1. husband takes all of the community debt – it is an equitable division of the debt, based on the ability of either spouse to be able to pay the debt, it should go to whoever is likely to be able to pay it back because the creditors interests trumps the spouses’ interests. Codified in 2226[b].

54 Cal.3d 26 (1991) | Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross

  1. women in California had difficulty hiring lawyers for divorce, legislature responded to this case in § 1102(e), that one spouse can give their lawyer a mortgage against the house for their services in getting a divorce, levels the playing field.

16 Cal.3d 583 (1976) | Marriage of Bouquet

  1. [retroactive application of statutory changes]

Marriage of Nelson

  1. Husband holding out house as ‘our house’ in reference to he and his wife – was an agreement between her and her husband that the house was their community property, and the court agreed; very controversial decision because it apparently made it very easy to transmute separate property into community property.

Marriage of Delvin

  1. husband was injured in a car accident before separation, which rendered him paraplegic, and he was forced to move into a custom built mobile home to accommodate his disability. Court articulates that since the only community property was the custom home, that in the interests of equity, that the husband must get the entire property, even if the wife is left out. Also, they found that the personal injury recovery was traceable as separate property.

Marriage of Walrath

  1. overall economic situation, credit markets poor – so, the couple’s jointly held property is upside-down; no problem really though, if there is nothing after reimbursing the separate property contributions, then it does not matter. Not a pro-community property holding at all.
Syndicate content