ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Family Law Blogs -> California Divorce Blawg

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Family Law

: California Divorce Blawg

That Porsche You Gave Your Spouse Is Not Separate Property

By John E. Harding, JD, CFLS

ADVERTISEMENTS

California has a statute, Family Code 852(c), that provides that gifts that are tangible articles of a personal nature and not of substantial value become the separate property of the recipient spouse.  The consequence at divorce is that the gifted piece of property does not get divided under the usual community property presumptions.  But what do tangible, personal, and substantial mean?  We know clothes and some jewelry come within the gift exception.  But what else?  According to a recent court opinion a Porsche, while tangible and substantial, is not personal and thus not separate property.

Generally under California's community property system, any property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property, and each spouse has an undivided one-half interest in that property.  If the asset is of substantial value one spouse can only consider the property to be his or her separate property if the other spouse signed a writing acknowledging the separate characterization. In Buie v. Neighbors the Court of Appeal has shed some light on the substantial value test.  "An automobile does not fall within the exception set forth in section 852(c) because it is not a tangible article of a personal nature, emphasis being placed on "personal."  Boiling it down, because one spouse cannot typically have exclusive use of the family car, it will not be considered a gift.

So there you go.  Now only seven billion more things to be adjudged "tangible articles of a personal nature not substantial in value."  My solution?  Get rid of the separate property exception altogether.

Please click here to read the Court's 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.

Full post as published by California Divorce Blawg on December 10, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0153 secs (new cache)