In a California Divorce, am I entitled to an interest in a property despite I signed an inter-spousal transfer grant deed?

This memorandum addresses the legal issue of property ownership following an interspousal transfer grant deed. Specifically, it examines whether a husband, who signed such a deed transferring a home purchased during the marriage to his wife, retains any entitlement to the property.

Statement of Facts: During their marriage, a husband and wife purchased a home. Subsequently, the husband signed an interspousal transfer grant deed, granting the property to the wife as her sole and separate property.

Legal Standards/Rules: In California, property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be community property, meaning it belongs to both spouses.  In re Brace, In re Marriage of Valli. This presumption can be rebutted by a clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title that the property is separate property and not community property.  In re Marriage of Oliverez, In re Marriage of Lafkas. However, property deeded to a wife by an instrument in writing is presumed to be her separate property.  Estate of Durham.

Analysis: In this case, the husband signed an interspousal transfer grant deed, which typically transfers all his interest in the property to the wife, making it her separate property.  Estate of Durham, In re Marriage of Broderick. However, the presumption of community property in California could potentially allow the husband to argue that the property is still community property, as it was acquired during the marriage.  In re Brace, In re Marriage of Valli. To successfully rebut this presumption, the husband would need to show a common understanding or agreement that the property would remain community property despite the interspousal transfer grant deed.  K6.06 Separate Property, Salveter v. Salveter, In re Brace.

Conclusion: In conclusion, while the interspousal transfer grant deed generally makes the property the wife's separate property, the husband may still be able to claim an interest in the property if he can rebut the presumption of community property by showing a common understanding or agreement to the contrary. However, this would likely require clear and convincing evidence.

*This article does not constitute legal advice nor does it form an attorney-client relationship. It is important that you consult with an attorney about your case.

In re Brace    | Supreme Court | 9 Cal. 5th 903 | Jul 23, 2020

In re Marriage of Valli    | Supreme Court | 58 Cal. 4th 1396 | May 15, 2014

In re Marriage of Oliverez    | 6th District Court of Appeal | 33 Cal. App. 5th 298 | Feb 28, 2019

In re Marriage of Lafkas    | 2nd District Court of Appeal | 237 Cal. App. 4th 921 | Jun 16, 2015

Estate of Durham    | 2nd District Court of Appeal | 108 Cal. App. 2d 148 | Dec 11, 1951

In re Marriage of Broderick    | 1st District Court of Appeal | 209 Cal. App. 3d 489 | Apr 7, 1989

K6.06 Separate Property    | K Complex Issues in California Family Law K6.06 | Practical Guidance | Treatises

Salveter v. Salveter    | Supreme Court | 206 Cal. 657 | Mar 9, 1929

In re Brace    | Supreme Court | 9 Cal. 5th 903 | Jul 23, 2020