Palm Desert Family Law Lawyer - Thurman W. Arnold III
California Family Law Attorney Attorney Profile Family Law Blog Frequently Asked Questions Resources
Contact our law firm about your case today.
 
Practice Areas
Annulments
Attorney Fees in Divorce
California Family Law Blog
California Family Statutes
Child Support and High Incomes
Community Property in California
Complex Spousal Support
Complicated Custody and Move-Away
Dissolutions
High Asset Divorce and Domestic Partnerships
High Asset Premarital Agreements
Testimonials and Endorsements
Valuing and Dividing Businesses
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives
Click here to be instantly connected to our office. Visit our family law blog.

Recent Posts in Domestic Partnerships Category

September 23, 2010
  What METHODS OF TRACINGS Do Family Courts Use?
Posted By Thurman Arnold
Q.  What rules apply to how tracings are performed in California dissolutions and what must be shown?

A.  In order to unwind transactions during marriage where monies and property with separate and community property attributes have been mixed together, the "separatizer" (the party seeking to establish their separate property contributions to the community or separate property of the other spouse or partner) has the burden of proof to present reliable tracing evidence to the Court. In order to settle even mildly complex disso's as between the parties without going to trial, this information must be provided to convince the other side that you have the ability to meet your burden. 

Here are some of the rules that apply the mechanics of tracings in dissolution actions and legal separations.

If the commingled funds are used to purchase property, the party who deposited the separate funds may attempt to trace the source of the funds used to purchase the property to establish that it is separate because separate funds were used to purchase it. This may overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community. Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 C3d 604.

If separate and community property or funds are commingled in such a manner that it is impossible to trace the source of the property or funds, the whole must be treated as community property. Marriage of Mix, supra.

If the title to the property was taken jointly, tracing cannot be used to overcome the presumption from the form of title. Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 C3d 808, 813–814. 

Direct tracing and tracing through family expenses are two independent methods of tracing to establish that property purchased with commingled funds is separate property.

Direct Tracing

Separate funds do not lose their separate character when commingled with community funds in a bank account so long as the amount of separate funds can be ascertained. Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 C3d 604.

If money is withdrawn to purchase specific property, questions of fact that must be determined include (Marriage of Mix, supra):

• Whether separate funds continue to be on deposit; and

• Whether the drawer intended to withdraw separate funds.

The party seeking to establish a separate interest in presumptive community property must keep adequate records. The party must show the exact amount of money allocable to separate property and the exact amount of money allocable to community property before it can be said that the money allocable to separate property is not so commingled that all funds in the account are community property. Marriage of Frick (1986) 181 CA3d 997. If the payments claimed to be separate were made periodically, each payment must have been made when separate property funds were in the account and must have been accompanied by an intent to use those funds rather than community funds. Marriage of Higinbotham (1988) 203 CA3d 322, 329.

Tracing Through Family Expenses

The second method of tracing to establish that property purchased with commingled funds is separate property requires a consideration of family expenses. This tracing method is based on the presumption that family expenses are paid from community funds.

If at the time the property is acquired it can be shown that all community income in a commingled account was exhausted by family expenses, then all funds remaining in the account at the time the property was purchased were necessarily separate funds. Marriage of Mix, supra.

This method can be used only when, through no fault of the spouse claiming separate property, it is not possible to ascertain the balance of income and expenditures at the time property was acquired. See v See (1966) 64 C2d 778, 784.

The spouse claiming separate property must keep adequate records to overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property. See v See, supra. Most people don't.

If you are contemplating a divorce and have tracing issues, protect your records now so that they do not 'disappear.' It can be very expensive to obtain bank statements and canceled checks dating back years, and with all of the bank failures and mergers today these records may become impossible to obtain. If you cannot meet your tracing burden of proof, you lose on the particular reimbursement issue....


T.W. ARNOLD

www.ThurmanArnold.com 

Continue reading "What METHODS OF TRACINGS Do Family Courts Use?" »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 
September 16, 2010
  What Does TRACING Refer to in CALIFORNIA DIVORCE CASES?
Posted By Thurman Arnold
Q.    What is meant by tracings in California in the context of divorce, domestic partnership dissolution, or legal separation?

A.  Married people routinely combine cash and assets in ways that must be disentangled if either party later claims that some of those assets were their separate property and wants it returned - I rarely see a case where they don't. In the absence of a prenup agreement saying otherwise, money or property acquired through the time, skill, or industry of either spouse between the date of marriage or registered domestic partnership and physical separation is presumed to be the community property of both parties. Property owned or acquired by either before marriage or after the date of separation, or inherited or gifted to them during marriage, is considered to be that party's separate property to the extent it can be shown to still exist. Separate property is not reimbursed where it has been spent on living expenses, although it may be reimbursed when spent on certain other categories of items. Usually the question involves who is entitled to what share of some asset which is still in existence.

Typical examples include:
  • One spouse has money in a savings or investment account before marriage. They then deposit earnings into that account after marriage. The account is used for living expenses. At the end of the relationship, what portion of what remains is separate and what is community?
  • The other party is added to a formerly separate property deposit account, for instance so that the account can be held in joint tenancy to avoid probate in the event of death. 
  • Spouse A inherits $500,000 from grandma during the marriage. This separate property inheritance gets put into a jointly titled bank account, into which other monies flow in and out. How is the balance divided?
  • Spouse A then contributes some of this inheritance to the purchase of a new residence. Title is taken jointly. When the couple splits, Spouse A naturally wants their contribution back. How is this achieved?
  • A married couple decides to establish a Living Trust to protect them both in the event of death or incapacity. They fund the Trust by transferring cash and real estate into it. A common mistake made by Estate lawyers is to describe the trust property as "community property" and to add a provision that says that if the parties divorce, this property will not be considered to be community and will be restored to each contributing party. Unfortunately, once separate property is declared in such instruments to be community a transmutation has occurred and the language that it is to be restored is of no legal effect - only a new transmutation will resurrect the status quo before the transfer. However, Family Code section 2640 provides that separate property contributions will nonetheless be reimbursed to the extent that the amounts can be separated out and established. The person seeking to confirm their SP contribution must trace the funds in order to receive this reimbursement.
  • One spouse places their separate property into the name of the other spouse, possibly to hide it from creditors or other family members. Upon separation, the receiving spouse claims it was a gift and wants to keep it all.
  • During the marriage one spouse's separate property is used to build an addition to the jointly titled home that significantly increases its value. When the house is valued and ordered sold, or purchased by one of the two partners, this contribution to improvements may be reimbursed if it can be traced to a separate property source.

Variations of this theme are endless because people when they get married just don't contemplate the relationship failing, don't understand the legal consequences of what they do, are reassured by their spouse in pillow talk that they will be reimbursed, and so blindly throw assets into a common pot in which the character and value of the contributions become mixed and muddied. 

The separation of these interests all require tracings, often involving transactions spanning many years. Maybe bank and other records still exist, but maybe they have been lost, destroyed, or hidden by the other. Even attorneys with some years in family law practice don't have a firm grasp on what tracings require in determining community separate property interests. When separate property and community property are commingled in an account, tracing issues arise. 

Sometimes these accountings are relatively simple. Frequently they require the use of a forensic accountant.



 Thurman W. Arnold, CFLS

www.ThurmanArnold.com 

Continue reading "What Does TRACING Refer to in CALIFORNIA DIVORCE CASES?" »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 
Law Firm of Thurman W. Arnold III - Information Center
Mindful Divorce Transitioning Resources Collaborative Divorce
 
Attorney Web Design The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

© 2012 by Thurman Arnold III Law Offices. All rights reserved.

Address: 225 South Civic Drive  Suite 1-3  Palm Springs, CA 92262    Phone: (760) 320-7915