California laws for property division in divorce has undergone significant change over the years. Due to its Spanish roots, California began as a community property state, in which all property acquired during the marriage is part of the community thus subject to equal division in divorce. Divorce in California really took off in 1969 when Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law “no-fault” divorce making California one of the first no-fault divorce states. The new law eliminated the need for couples to articulate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce. In the decades that ensued, almost every state in America would follow California’s lead and enact “no-fault” divorce of its own. This legal transformation would open the floodgates to divorce in the United States. From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled. With the major influx of California divorce came novel legal questions on how to fairly divide property between divorced spouses. The California legislature and judiciary would create new laws to address these issues.

Perhaps the most landmark amendment to the Family Code is the addition of Family Code §2640, which requires reimbursement of a spouse’s traceable separate property contributions towards the acquisition of community property before division can commence. Under this statute, all separate property used to obtain a property with joint and equal ownership is reimbursable separate property. Moreover, Family Code §2640 states that the spouse who made a separate property contribution is entitled to interest-free reimbursement for the down payment, improvements, and principal, but not an ownership interest. This reimbursement also does not include payments towards taxes, insurance, or maintenance.

Prior to the enactment of this statute, the California Supreme Court presumed that any separate property funds (e.g. money acquired before marriage and inheritances) used to purchase an asset during the marriage was presumed to be a “gift” to the community. This presumption, colloquially referred to as the “Lucas Presumption” precluded a spouse from claiming any interest in a community asset regardless of whether the spouse spent much of his own separate property money to purchase it. In most cases today, the Lucas Presumption no longer applies, thanks to the 1984 California Legislature. However, in certain rare cases for property acquired before the statute, the court will use a two-part analysis to determine whether retroactive application of section 2640 violates due process under the Constitution. First: The significance of the state interest served by the law and the importance of the retroactive application of the law to the effectuation of that interest; and Second: The extent of reliance upon the former law, the legitimacy of that reliance, the extent of actions taken on the basis of that reliance, and the extent to which the retroactive application of the new law would disrupt those actions. (In re Marriage of Heikes (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1211, 1219).

even if the property was acquired after 1984 and either party is entitled to reimbursement under section 2640, it is vital that the necessary records are maintained so that a court can trace the funds from the community asset back to all separate funds. Burden of proof and problems arise if the monies were commingled into a joint account. These issues are especially apt in lengthy marriages where a spouse may not have kept a record of his or her separate contributions. As previously explained in other blog posts, the best way to ensure adequate accounting for separate property assets is to proactively keep an inventory of its rents, issues, and profits. In instances where a community asset is purchased with commingled funds it may still be possible to obtain reimbursement under the method of tracing by recapitulation. Under this method, a court may conclude that the asset was purchased with separate funds if the party can prove that all community funds had been exhausted by community expenses at the time of the transaction.

The date of separation has also undergone significant change in California. The date of separation in a California divorce can play a very important role in determining the division of assets and debts. It can be the difference between whether an asset is community or separate property and whether a marriage is of “long duration” or “short” for purposes of determining spousal support. Initially, the rule was that the date of separation occurred when either spouse did not intend to continue the marriage and their conduct was consistent with the complete and final breakdown of the marriage. Then in July 2015, the California Supreme Court abrogated that rule in a decision called Marriage of Davis. This decision created a bright-line rule making physical separation a necessity to separate. This meant that parties who could not afford to live out on their own were precluded from legal separation. Many family law lawyers, judges and the California legislature did not like this decision. Thus, in 2016 Governor Brown signed into law Family Code section 70 defining separation as the date that a complete and final break in the marital relationship has occurred, as evidenced by (1) a spouse’s intent to end the marriage and (2) conduct of the spouse that is consistent with his or her intent to end the marriage. The law requires courts to take into consideration all relevant evidence.

If you are seeking information or counsel regarding estate planning or protecting your property during divorce, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri – we offer free half-hour consultations. We also offer free wills to all of our family law clients during the process of their divorce.

Lastly, please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Debating on whether or not to present your future spouse with a prenuptial agreement can be a hot button issue. Nothing is more romantic than planning for the possibility of divorce before your wedding day. If you are the type of person that would like to have protections regarding your property, but do not want a full-fledged prenuptial agreement, there are many options available to you. Since in California we run a community property system, acting upon these options are necessary to ensure that your separate property stays separate.  Community property is all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state. (Cal Fam Code § 760).  Separate property is all property acquired before marriage or during marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, including the rents, issues, and profits of the separate property. (Cal Fam Code § 770).  As a married person, however, you can generally maintain your own “separate property” by making sure it literally stays separate and doesn’t mingle with anything community.

Separate Property Inventories: the best way to ensure you have adequate accounting for your separate property assets is to keep an inventory of them. You would identify the property you are bringing into the marriage and identify the rents, issues, and profits from them. Think of this as a proactive tracking and accounting of what you have.  While this task is time consuming, it would be helpful to identify the fair market value of each item you are listing as well. In case there is any appreciation in value of your property, your spouse may have a claim to some reimbursement to that appreciation, discussed more later. This inventory does not need to be limited solely to property you acquired prior to marriage. You can update this list during the marriage by identifying any property you received as a gift, devise, bequest or descent. As noted above, property in these categories are also your separate property whether or not you are married at the time you receive it. Id.

Separate Funds: Keep your non-marital funds separate. The best way to generally ensure your marital funds are separate would be to keep any money you earned before marriage, or inherited at any time, in a bank account separate from your spouse’s. Obtaining a sole account in your name gives only you access to the funds in the account and the ability to obtain information from the account. (Carillo, supra at 38-39). Any earnings you receive during marriage should go into another account, either another sole account or a joint account with your spouse. Any earnings you receive during marriage are community property barring an agreement between you and your spouse.  This includes any expenditures of time, talent, and labor. (In re Marriage of Dekker, 17 Cal. App. 4th 842, 850, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 642, 647 (1993)). When your community property earnings are combined with you separate property earnings it results in “commingled” funds. (Carillo, supra at 79). Courts would need trace the funds back to both separate funds and community funds to determine their contribution to the purchase and thus their entitlement to reimbursement. Keeping funds separate saves a lot of time and confusion and is more likely to result in those funds being treated as your separate property later than if the funds have to be traced.

Real estate: Keep your real property separate from your spouse. One example: purchasing a home before you met or were married to your spouse. If you want that property to remain solely your separate property then you would refrain from adding your spouse’s name to the title of your home. Having joint title on the deed of your home raises a presumption that the property is community property. (Cal Fam Code § 2581). In addition, you would also need to maintain the home solely with non-marital funds. This could be done with money you earned before marriage or an inheritance because these are your separate property, as defined above.

Separate Business: Obtain a valuation of your separate business prior to marriage. The value of your business at divorce will likely be higher than before marriage and would be subject to the community property presumption. Any community contributions to this increase will be entitled to some reimbursement at divorce. (In re Marriage of Dekker, 17 Cal. App. 4th 842, 851, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 642, 647 (1993)). The problem is, if you did not obtain the value of your business before marriage, your spouse may receive more than he or she is actually entitled to receive or actually contributed to the business growth. For example: your business was valued at $100,000 on the date of your marriage and worth $500,000 on the date of your divorce. Your spouse would be entitled to $200,000 which is half of the appreciation (or difference between the two valuations). If you did not receive that initial valuation, the court could end up valuing it at less than its actual value at the time, and your spouse would receive more.

If you have an issue concerning your separate property rights, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. We offer a free half-hour consultations.

Lastly, please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice.  Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

For many parents, the topic of vaccinations is a very personal one. There are strong stances on both sides of the vaccination divide, with some believing that vaccinations should be mandatory, and others believing that the decision to vaccinate should be their own. While the issue most commonly arises between parents and educational institutions, it is becoming more common for it to arise between separated parents. Although California has yet to decide a case involving violation of a court order for vaccinations, a recent Michigan case sheds some light on how California might rule on this issue.

In general, California has strict vaccination laws. California, along with the other 49 states, requires that school-age children be vaccinated against childhood diseases as a condition to attending school and day care programs. While some states do recognize your right to not vaccinate on religious grounds, and others recognize your right to not vaccinate on moral or philosophical grounds, California is not one of those states. The only permitted exemptions in California are for valid medical reasons. According to the National Vaccine Information Center, to qualify under a medical exemption, a parent or guardian must submit a written statement from a licensed physician (M.D. or D.O.) which confirms that the physical condition or medical circumstances of the child is such that the required immunization is not indicated, states which vaccines are being exempted, whether the medical exemption is permanent or temporary, and the expiration date, if the exemption is temporary.

The list of recognized medical exemptions in California is very narrow. You may find it at the National Vaccine Information Center website. It includes Autoimmune Conditions, Hyper immune conditions, Immune cancers, Immune deficiencies, Genetic SNP’s associated with increased vaccine reaction risk, and vaccine reactions. However, the state will not provide an exemption for ADD, behavior issues, psychiatric diseases, Asperger’s, Autism, neurologic diseases, hypertension, heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, or adult onset diabetes.

Similarly, California’s contempt statutes contemplate strict compliance with a court order. Under California Civil Procedure Code sections 1218 and 1219, a party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order, is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties. Under California Penal Code section 166, contempt of court refers to any behavior that is disrespectful to the court process, including but not limited to, willfully disobeying a court order. The consequences of this may include jail time and/or fines.

The recent Michigan case involved a mother who was ordered, through a custody agreement, to maintain the child’s vaccinations. Despite this, the mother told the judge that she was personally opposed to vaccinating her son, and thus would not comply with the court order. This resulted in the mother being held in contempt of court, and the judge ordering her to spend 7 days in jail. The issue at hand was not specifically focused on the child being vaccinated or not, but rather on the mother’s willful disobedience of a clear order to maintain her child’s vaccinations.

The issue of complying with a court order is one that California is clear on. As such, if you are ordered by a court to maintain your child’s vaccinations, you must comply, or risk being held in contempt. However, in the event you are held in contempt of court, you do maintain your due process protections in the contempt proceeding. Contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, which means you have the right to notice, the opportunity to be heard, the right to counsel, the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), and in some cases, the right to a jury trial.

If you have an issue concerning your rights regarding vaccinations, compliance with court orders, or contempt of court, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. We offer a free half-hour consultations.

Lastly, please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.