Opinion
F053123
4-21-2008
In re the Marriage of SHIRLEY and LARRY PADILLA. SHIRLEY JUNE PADILLA, Respondent, v. LARRY LAWRENCE PADILLA, Appellant.
Larry G. Wilson for Appellant. Shirley June Padilla, in pro. per., for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appellant Larry Lawrence Padilla challenges the trial courts determination that real property located on Hermosa Road was community property and that he had no separate property interest therein. We will affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Larry Padilla and Shirley June Padilla began a close personal relationship in 1972. In 1977, Padilla bought real property located on Hermosa Road with proceeds he received from a personal injury settlement. The purchase price was $39,000.
In 1980, Padilla was charged with criminal offenses and jailed. On February 26, 1981, while in jail, Padilla quitclaimed the Hermosa Road property to "SHIRLEY PADILLA, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN" as her sole and separate property. Shirleys correct surname was Higgenbottom. The quitclaim deed was not signed before a notary public. Padilla claimed his criminal defense attorney urged him to transfer the property to Shirley because otherwise he was "going to lose everything."
On May 5, 1981, Shirley signed a note and deed of trust to Happys Bail Bonds, securing Padillas bail with a deed of trust against the Hermosa Road property.
Padilla and Shirley married on August 10, 1985.
In 1995, Shirley filed a homestead declaration on the Hermosa Road property; she was the only one who signed the declaration.
In February 1997, Shirley signed an interspousal transfer deed on the Hermosa Road property, transferring that property into both her and Padillas names as joint tenants.
The parties refinanced the property and secured the loan with a deed of trust against the Hermosa Road property.
The parties separated on August 12, 2005.
In the dissolution of marriage action, the trial court found that title to the Hermosa Road property had been held by Shirley as her sole and separate property for four years prior to marrying Padilla. After marriage, title remained in Shirleys name as her sole and separate property for approximately 12 years, until Shirley transferred title into both their names as joint tenants. The trial court determined that the Hermosa Road property was community property, with Padilla having no separate property interest at the time of marriage.
The trial court ordered the Hermosa Road property sold, with the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties.
Padilla appealed, contending the Hermosa Road property was his separate property, and sought a stay of the judgment. The stay was denied.
On February 29, 2008, after the appeal was filed, Shirley quitclaimed her interest in the Hermosa Road property to Manuel Padilla and David J. Padilla, as joint tenants, for the sum of $10,000. Manuel and David Padilla are Padillas brothers.
DISCUSSION
We review the trial courts factual findings regarding the character of the parties property under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Marriage of Ettefagh (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1584.)
It is undisputed that when the parties married, title of record to the Hermosa Road property was held in the name of Shirley as her sole and separate property. It also is undisputed that record title to the Hermosa Road property remained in Shirleys name as her sole and separate property for 16 years, until February 1997, when Shirley transferred the property to herself and Padilla as joint tenants.
The trial court held that marital property rules did not apply to the 1981 transfer of the Hermosa Road property by Padilla to Shirley because the parties were not married at that time. The trial court further concluded that Padilla had made a gift of the property to Shirley in 1981, prior to marriage. At the time of their marriage, the Hermosa Road property was Shirleys separate property. When Shirley executed the interspousal transfer deed, the property became community property.
The trial court correctly concluded that provisions of family law applicable to marriages do not govern property acquired during nonmarital relationships. (Kroopf v. Guffey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1357.) So, the evidence concerning the actions of Padillas attorney in the criminal action was not relevant.
Evidence Code section 662 provides that the "owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title." This presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. (Ibid.) The presumption in Evidence Code section 662 applies to unmarried parties in a confidential relationship, such as existed between Padilla and Shirley prior to marriage. (Toney v. Nolder (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 791, 796.)
The trial court found that Padilla had transferred the Hermosa Road property to Shirley in 1981, while he was jailed. After his release from jail, and for 16 years thereafter, title to the real property remained in Shirleys name as her sole and separate property. During this 16-year period, Padilla took no action to have his name added to the property or to have the property reconveyed to him, even though Padilla handled all the finances for the family. The trial court concluded that Padilla gifted the Hermosa Road property to Shirley in 1981 and that Shirley owned the Hermosa Road property as her sole and separate property at the time of their marriage.
Padilla claimed at the time of dissolution of the marriage that the Hermosa Road property was his separate property because he initially had purchased it prior to marriage. As the trial court noted, this argument ignores Padilla having transferred the property to Shirley prior to their marriage. Furthermore, there was no indication on the deed from Padilla to Shirley that Padilla retained any beneficial interest, or that Shirley was obligated to reconvey the property to Padilla. There was no written agreement between the parties that provided that Padilla retained any beneficial interest or that Shirley was to reconvey the property to him.
Padilla failed to overcome the Evidence Code section 662 presumption that the owner of the legal title is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial interest.
Having concluded that the Hermosa Road property was Shirleys separate property at the time of her marriage to Padilla, we next address the interspousal transfer by Shirley, transferring the Hermosa Road property to herself and Padilla as joint tenants. Factors determinative of whether property is separate or community include the time of the propertys acquisition, operation of various presumptions, including those regarding the form of title, and whether there has been a transmutation of property. (In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 291.) All three of these factors are relevant in this case.
Family Code section 2581 provides that property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form is presumed to be community property on dissolution of marriage. This presumption can be rebutted by a clear statement in the deed or title documents that the property is separate property and not community, or by proof of a written agreement between the parties that the property is separate property. (Fam. Code, § 2581.)
The case of In re Marriage of Heikes (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1211 is factually similar to the instant case. In Heikes, it was the husband who owned separate property at the time of the marriage. At some point after his marriage, husband conveyed his separate property to himself and his wife as joint tenants. (Id. at p. 1214.) Upon dissolution of the marriage, the real property was treated as community property. (Id. at pp. 1217-1218, 1225.)
Shirley owned the Hermosa Road property as her sole and separate property at the time of her marriage to Padilla. In 1997, during their marriage, she transferred title to that property to herself and Padilla as joint tenants and recorded the interspousal transfer deed. Pursuant to Family Code sections 852 and 2581, and Heikes, the Hermosa Road property thereafter presumptively was community property. (In re Marriage of Heikes, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1224.) There is no statement in the interspousal transfer deed, or any other writing, that rebuts the presumption. (Fam. Code, § 2581.)
Pursuant to Family Code section 2640, Shirley could have asserted a right to reimbursement for separate property contributions to the community. (Fam. Code, § 2640, subd. (b).) Shirley, however, did not assert a separate property interest in the Hermosa Road property. Therefore, the trial court did not, and we need not, address the issue of reimbursement for Shirleys contribution of separate property to the community.
Substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that at the time of dissolution of the parties marriage, the Hermosa Road property was community property to be divided equally between Padilla and Shirley. (In re Marriage of Ettefagh, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1584.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to Shirley June Padilla.
We Concur:
HILL, J.
KANE, J. --------------- Notes: We will refer to Shirley Padilla by her first name not out of disrespect, but in order to avoid confusion to the reader.