Family Law

We don't see too many appellate court opinions dealing with domestic partnerships, which is too bad because family law lawyers are clamoring for clarifying law on the emerging domestic partnership practice area.  Guess what? An unpublished opinion has come out of Orange County dealing with real property in a domestic partnership.

Chris and Jim started dating.  Eventually Chris moved into the home Jim owned.  In 1999 Jim sold his home, and bought a brand new property in his name only in the community of Evening Star.  While that new home was being built Jim and Chris moved into the home of Jim's grandparents. By 2003 the two men had created a joint checking account into which they were both depositing their paychecks and were presumably living in the Evening Star home.

It seems Chris started getting a bit cranky, and started insisting that Jim add him to the title of the Evening Star property.  If he did not, Chris threatened to "out" Jim's homosexuality and turn him in to the IRS over dubious tax practices (sounds like a great relationship).

In 2003 Jim finally relented to Chris's demands and put him on title to the Evening Star property.  In 2007 the couple broke up, and litigation ensued; including Jim's effort to have the grant deed transferring the Evening Star property to him and Chris cancelled.

After trial the court entered judgment in Jim?s favor, cancelling the pertinent deeds and finding that Chris had no rights or title in the Evening Star property on the basis of undue influence.

    ?Undue influence consists:  [¶] 1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him; [¶] 2. In taking an unfair advantage of another?s weakness of mind; or, [¶] 3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another?s necessities or distress.?  (Civ. Code, § 1575.) 

    ?Undue influence, in the sense we are concerned with here, is a shorthand legal phrase used to describe persuasion which tends to be coercive in nature, persuasion which overcomes the will without convincing the judgment.  [Citation.]  The hallmark of such persuasion is high pressure, a pressure which works on mental, moral, or emotional weakness to such an extent that it approaches the boundaries of coercion. In this sense, undue influence has been called overpersuasion.  [Citation.]?  (Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 130.)

    As the party seeking to void the grant deed, [Jim] has the burden of demonstrating undue influence.  He is helped by a presumption of undue influence which arises when ?a confidential relation exists between the parties, and the one in whom confidence is reposed actively participates in a transaction whereby he obtains a gift from, or advantage over, the other . . . .?  (Krug v. Meeham (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 274, 278.)  Where such a presumption arises, the burden of rebutting it and showing ?fairness and good faith? shifts to the party who received the gift.  (Id. at p. 279.)

    The trial court broke down the requirements of establishing the undue influence presumption into the following elements:  ?The analysis is as follows:  (1) The parties were in a confidential relationship during the relevant period; (2) the title transfer transaction unduly benefitted [Chris]; and (3) [Chris] was an active participant in the procurement of that benefit.?  Assuming that the proper evidentiary standard is the clear and convincing evidence standard of section 662, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the trial court?s finding of clear and convincing evidence.

    There is no real doubt that [Jim] and [Chris] were in a confidential relationship, and the parties admitted as much in the trial court.  The trial court found that ?[a]s to the second element, it is abundantly clear that [Chris] was the beneficiary of a benefit that was well outside the range of any prior gift he had ever received from [Jim], and it was certainly not bargained for, paid for, or earned in any fashion. . . .?  [Chris] contends[1] this was not sufficient because ?the court disregarded the evidence of both parties that they were in a long term committed and loving relationship, they had already been living together for more than eight years and were sharing everything else in their life.?  Whether the parties were in a long-term relationship is pertinent to whether the relationship was a confidential one, not as to whether the transaction unduly benefitted [Chris].  When it comes to financial matters, the record amply demonstrates that [Jim] had contributed the vast majority of the money to the relationship.  Given all of the facts, the court correctly found that giving a one-half interest in a home with close to $2 million in equity was an ?undue benefit.?

    Finally, as to whether [Chris] actively participated in the procurement of the benefit, there was clear and convincing evidence.  Chris pursued his desire to be included on the deed continuously and over a period of years, resulting in a number of arguments with [Jim].  He enlisted others in his quest.  There is no real doubt in the record that [Chris] wanted to be on the deed to the Evening Star property and actively lobbied Burns to include him on the deed.  

I am calling this the case where "whining gets you nowhere!"

Please click here to read the full opinion.

Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.