- 11 -
that we are not bound by the Superior Court of California's
determination.
Intent of Parties:
Evidence is admissible to show that a husband and wife, who
took property as joint tenants, actually intended it to be
community property. Sears v. Rule, 163 P.2d 443, 449 (Cal.
1945); Tomaier v. Tomaier, 146 P.2d 905, 906 (Cal. 1944).
Separate property may be converted to community property by oral
agreement, proven by the acts and conduct of the parties in
dealing with the property; however, the evidence must be
sufficient to support a finding, adverse to record title.
Bernatas v. Honnert (In re Bernatas' Estate), 328 P.2d 539, 541
(Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958). A mistaken belief about the nature
of the property, or intent communicated to the other spouse about
converting the property from one form to another, without more,
will not rebut the presumption raised by the form of deed by
which such property was acquired by husband and wife. Edwards v.
Dietrich, 257 P.2d 750, 754 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1953).
Petitioner primarily relies upon Yang's testimony. In her
written statement, Yang stated that she and decedent always
viewed the marital accumulations as "community property."
According to Yang, the Youngs thought the property was community
property.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011