A Snarl of Conflicting Presumptions – In Re Brace and Estate of Wall Continue California’s Struggle to Square the Conflicting Presumptions Set Forth in Family Code Section 760 and Evidence Code Section 662

Home
»
Trusts & Estates
»
Product Details

You must select a location to proceed.

Yes

There was a problem adding this course to your account. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, you can contact our support department at (877) 880-1335.

Adding Registration, Please wait...

You must be logged in to perform this action.

Cancel

A Snarl of Conflicting Presumptions – In Re Brace and Estate of Wall Continue California’s Struggle to Square the Conflicting Presumptions Set Forth in Family Code Section 760 and Evidence Code Section 662

California Trusts and Estates Quarterly - Volume 28, Issue 3

Credit(s):

1 Self-Study Credit

Course Number:

TE_Vol28_No3_2022_2

Access:

Available for 3 months after Registration

Passport:

This product is Passport Eligible

Facebook

Twitter

E-Mail

Description
Sessions
Credits
Faculty
Materials
Reviews
Dates and Locations
Pricing

Category: Trusts & Estates

Category: Trusts & Estates (show less)

Most Californians are aware that property acquired during their marriage is presumed to be community property, and that property they owned before marriage is their separate property. What most California married couples are not aware of is that beneath the surface of this bedrock tenet of California law are conflicting presumptions that, when put to the test, may not match the average married couple’s expectations.

Take, for example, a joint tenancy deed. Married couples are frequently advised by brokers or escrow officers to take title in joint tenancy to avoid probate. However, joint tenancy deeds have consequences that many people do not anticipate. And when “the rubber hits the road” and actual ownership of property is put to the test in different contexts, things get complicated fast. This, in large measure, has to do with the different presumptions courts may apply regarding characterization of property owned by married couples. For instance, what happens when property that was acquired during marriage (that was neither gifted nor inherited) is titled in the name of only one spouse and then that spouse dies? Under the Family Code, this property would be presumed community property. But under the Evidence Code, this property would be presumed to belong to the spouse in whose name it is titled. Further complicating the picture for trust and estate practitioners is how the priority of presumptions operates when property is held in trust.

At this time, no bright line rules exist, and no cases fully resolve these questions. However, several decisions afford guidance. In In re Marriage of Valli, the California Supreme Court determined the community property presumption should govern when an insurance policy was purchased with community funds but was titled solely in the wife’s name. In re Brace expanded the holding of Valli beyond actions between spouses, finding that the community property presumption also governed in a bankruptcy action between a married couple and a bankruptcy trustee. Yet, in Estate of Wall, the Third District Court of Appeal determined that, in the probate context, the form of title presumption for real property supersedes the community property presumption after death. This article is a survey of recent cases addressing these characterization issues. The hope is that this survey will provide practitioners with information regarding how courts have applied the conflicting presumptions in Family Code section 760 and Evidence Code section 662.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

(Self Study Articles)
To Protect and Serve – A Case to Abolish Attorney Work Product Protection as to Estate Planners’ Files in Post-Death Will or Trust Contests

(OnDemand)
Inside The Black Box of Estate Administration and Executors’ Elections

(Self Study Articles)
Life Settlements—The Hidden Tool to Unlock, Preserve and Rescue Value in the Estate Plan

(Self Study Articles)
Ethics of Social Media for Lawyers: Where Stunting for the Gram Meets Losing Your Bar Card

(Self Study Articles)
Can I Drive Home After Happy Hour? Have Booze and Cannabis Changed Things?

(Self Study Articles)
California’s Statutory Will Needs an Update to Keep Up with Duke

(Self Study Articles)
“Black Lives Matter” Murals: Intellectual Property Vs. Real Property Rights

(Self Study Articles)
Advance Planning – A Decade in Review: What Have We Learned Over the Last Decade and Where Are We Headed?

(Self Study Articles)
Informal Consultations with Outside Lawyers: How Much Can Be Shared?

(CLEtoGo (Podcasts))
The Ethics of Social Media and Attorney Competency

(Self Study Articles)
Post Mortem of Proposition 19: The COVID-19 of the Estate Planning World

(Self Study Articles)
Tips of the Trade: Brace Yourself: Why in Re Brace May Prove 202’s Most Significant Non-Probate, Non-Trust Case for California Probate and Estate Planning Practitioners