“Along with seven other states, California determines rights to marital property based on community property principles. The original community property statutes, enacted in 1850 shortly after statehood, borrowed liberally from Texas statutes, but essentially reflect the Spanish-Mexican community property system from which both sets of statutes were derived. From this common origin, California community property law has evolved differently from the laws of Texas and other states. While sharing some principles, the California community property system is unique. Though occasionally helpful, reference to foreign decisional law often will be of no assistance or even misleading. California case law very early in its development diverged in significant respects from the case law of other community property states. Moreover, the legislature has played a central role in shaping the direction of California community property law. Most of the guiding principles are enshrined in statutes. California judges thus are wary of authority from other states. Primary, often exclusive, reliance must be placed on the language of California statutes and applicable California case law. [Common Law and Community Property: Origins of the California System. 51 St BJ 478 (1976)] Parties may lawfully waive their rights to community property. [In re Marriage of Facter, 212 Cal. App. 4th 967, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 79 (1st Dist. 2013), review filed, (Feb. 22, 2013)] California is community property law state, with “community” being about property acquired during marriage, and not a “community obligation” state in which the husband binds his spouse to whatever obligations he chooses to unilaterally impose on the wife. [In re Landes, 627 B.R. 144 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2021)]”
“California community property law is a complex amalgam of principles derived initially from Spanish law extant during early statehood. It has evolved to reflect the prevailing attitudes towards marriage and the relationship between spouses. Three principles developed early and remain fundamental. (1) Equality of Interests. Spouses have equal ownership interests in community property. Fam. Code § 751 provides “[t]he respective interests of the husband and wife in community property during continuance of the marriage relation are present, existing, and equal interests.” Generally, community property is subject to equal management and control of both spouses. [Fam. Code, §§ 1100, 1102] Community property must be divided equally between spouses on dissolution of marriage. [Fam. Code, § 2550] The surviving spouse is entitled to one half of community property on death; one half is subject to testamentary disposition. [Prob Code, § 6103] Community property is liable for the torts and contracts of both spouses to the same extent. (2) The “Source” Doctrine. In the absence of a controlling statutory presumption to the contrary, the character of property as community or separate will be determined by the source of assets used to produce it. Transmutations in form do not change the character of property. Community property produces community property. Separate property produces separate property. The rents, profits, income, and increases in value of separate or community property retain the characteristics of the underlying property. [Fam. Code, § 770; Boyd v. Oser, 23 Cal. 2d 613, 145 P.2d 312 (1944)] An increase in profits attributable to a community endeavor is also community property, regardless of which spouse’s efforts and separate property are involved. [Patrick v. Alacer Corp., 167 Cal. App. 4th 995, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 (4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g, 02/24/09 (Nov. 21, 2008)] (3) Alteration by Contract. Within certain public policy limits, and subject to certain formalities, the parties can agree to alter the application of community property laws to their marital property.”
“The community property system rests on the concept that marriage is a partnership, and the property and earnings acquired during a valid marriage are the property of both partners in equal shares. [Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2011), review granted and opinion superseded, 2011 WL 3758310 (Cal. 2011)] The equal division of the community estate is a nondelegable judicial function which must be based upon substantial evidence. The court has broad discretion to determine the manner in which community property is divided and the responsibility to fix the value of assets and liabilities in order to accomplish an equal division of property. [In re Marriage of Campi, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1565, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 179 (1st Dist. 2013)] The statute governing community real property was designed to protect a spouse from the unauthorized alienation or encumbering of marital property by the other spouse. [Safarian v. Govgassian, 47 Cal. App. 5th 1053, 261 Cal. Rptr. 3d 473 (2d Dist. 2020), review denied, (Aug. 12, 2020)] The Evidence Code’s presumption that the owner of the legal title to property is the owner of the full beneficial title is not a separate property exception to the Family Code provision stating that property acquired during a marriage is community property. [In re Brace, 9 Cal. 5th 903, 266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298, 470 P.3d 15 (Cal. 2020)]”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
