- 11 -
5118 (West 1983); In re Marriage of Hardin, 38 Cal. App. 4th 448,
451 (1995) (interpreting the phrase "living separate and apart"
in the context of Family Code sec. 771 (West 1994), previously
Cal. Civ. Code sec. 5118 (West 1983)).
Respondent determined that petitioners were California
domiciliaries during all of the years in issue and thus are
subject to California community property law.
At trial, petitioner testified that during 1989 and 1990,
he traveled on business to Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Texas. Carolyn Webb asserts that she left California for Texas
sometime around July of 1989 to stay with her parents while her
husband was away from home on business. The Webbs returned to
California in approximately May of 1990.
That Carolyn Webb was out of California for part of 1989 and
1990 does not except her from California community property law.
As we discussed above, it is domicile, not place of temporary
residence, that determines the application of community property
rules. Whitmore v. Commissioner, supra. For community property
purposes, to show that she changed her place of domicile, Carolyn
Webb must establish that she left California with an intent to
remain in a new location permanently or indefinitely. Id. We
are not convinced of such intent. In 1990, Carolyn Webb was
merely visiting her sick father in Texas, while petitioner was
traveling for business. Petitioners then returned to their place
of permanent residence at 511 San Luis, Vallejo, California,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011