Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. We submit this appeal on the briefs.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
75 A.F.T.R.2d 95-2180
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the District of Nevada, D.C. No. CV-89-00659-HDM; Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding.
D.Nev.
AFFIRMED.
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, and GOODWIN and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
The Nelsons and their daughters appeal for the second time the district court's holding that the Internal Revenue Service could levy upon and sell the real property originally held in joint tenancy by the Nelsons and apply the entire proceeds to the payment of the taxes owed by Kenneth W. Nelson. We affirm.
We previously remanded for a determination as to whether the property was held in joint tenancy or as community property since the record was not adequately developed on that point. Upon retrial extensive evidence was taken.
After trial the district court concluded, based on the record as developed, that the Nelsons held the property as community property. Although they took title to the property in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, the source of the funds for the acquisition was community property. Subsequently, the Nelsons filed a homestead declaration which stated that the property was their community property. The record also was replete with evidence that community funds were used from time to time to improve the property. The district court had an adequate basis to find that any presumption that the property was joint tenancy property was overcome by these facts.
If appellants' view were to prevail, the community property system would be destroyed. Each spouse would be an independent actor; each spouse could have a widely different interest from that of the other. Creditors, supposedly creditors of the community, could reach only the unexpended portion of the actor's community interest. In effect, there would be no community. That is simply not the law of Nevada or any other community property state.
We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.