“As defined by statute, “community property” requires a valid marriage and domicile in California. [Fam. Code, § 760] However, in limited circumstances, community property principles can be applied although neither requirement is met. We live in an extremely mobile society. Couples marry elsewhere, acquire property, and then move to California, frequently to retire. The law also recognizes that couples may live separate lives. In dissolution proceedings, “husband and wife each may have a separate domicile …” [Fam. Code, § 2322] Inequity can result when community property principles are not uniformly applied to all property owned by married couples who are domiciled and seek marital dissolution in California, including property acquired while domiciled in common law states. In most common law states, property acquired in the name of the principal wage earner, usually the husband, will be characterized as that spouse’s separate property. While common law states provide the other spouse with various equalizing protections designed to insure an equitable division of property, the characterization of the property is unaffected. Thus when the parties move to California the wife is deprived of the protections afforded in common law states and is bound by a characterization scheme that favors the husband.
“Recognizing this inequity, the legislature in 1961 created the concept of “quasi-community property,” which was defined to include all real or personal property, wherever situated, which would have been community property if the acquiring spouse had been domiciled in California at the time of the property’s acquisition. [Fam. Code, § 125] The validity of the quasi-community property statute was upheld in Addison v. Addison, 62 Cal. 2d 558, 43 Cal. Rptr. 97, 399 P.2d 897, 14 A.L.R.3d 391 (1965). Under the current statute, quasi-community property also includes property received in exchange for real or personal property, wherever situated, which would have been community property if the spouse who acquired the property exchanged had been domiciled in California at the time of its acquisition.”
“Generally, “quasi-community property” principles may only be applied if both parties have changed their domicile to California and subsequent to the change one or both spouses seeks a legal alteration of their marital status. [In re Marriage of Roesch, 83 Cal. App. 3d 96, 147 Cal. Rptr. 586 (1st Dist. 1978); In re Marriage of Fransen, 142 Cal. App. 3d 419, 190 Cal. Rptr. 885 (2d Dist. 1983)] However, California law may be applied to the division of a military pension even though one spouse is not a California domiciliary, if the nondomiciliary spouse has consented to California’s exercise of jurisdiction. Consent is therefore an effective alternative to domicile. [In re Marriage of Jacobson, 161 Cal. App. 3d 465, 207 Cal. Rptr. 512 (2d Dist. 1984)] This reasoning would appear to be compelling in all factual contexts, not merely those involving a military pension. It should be emphasized, however, that assumption of a California domicile does not automatically transform marital property acquired in common law states into community property. The parties must also seek a judicial alteration of their marital status. [Addison v. Addison, 62 Cal. 2d 558, 566, 43 Cal. Rptr. 97, 102, 399 P.2d 897, 14 A.L.R.3d 391 (1965)]”
“Fam. Code § 63 provides that “community estate” includes both the community property and quasi-community property. Thus, for purposes of division in a dissolution or separation proceeding, quasi-community and community property are indistinguishable. [In re Marriage of Craig, 219 Cal. App. 3d 683, 268 Cal. Rptr. 396 (1st Dist. 1990)] Quasi-community property can also be protected from dissipation during the pendency of a proceeding under the Family Code [Fam. Code, § 2045, subd. (a)], and used to enforce spousal support [Fam. Code, § 4338], and child support [Fam. Code, § 4008] orders.”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
