Legal Question in Family Law in California

There is a legal doctrine known as the Moore-Marsden rule that covers the situation with your house. Short answer is he is not entitled to 50% of your property purchased prior to marriage. If community funds were used to pay for anything to do with it, however, the community would be entitled to a Moore-Marsden reimbursement and he would be entitled to half of that. The MM reimbursement can be a difficult number to calculate, but the simplified version is that community funds that increased the equity in the property are subject to reimbursement, but not funds that were just spent on the property without increasing net equity. The simplest example is that if you paid the mortgage out of your paycheck during the marriage (which are community funds) the portion of each payment that paid down the principal would be subject to the MM reimbursement, but the portion that paid interest would not. Building an addition with community funds would be, painting the house would not. After you calculate the MM reimbursement, you then figure out what percentage of total equity that is, and apply that percentage to the appreciation in the value of the property since the date of marriage. That percentage of the appreciation, plus the reimbursement, is the community's interest in the property. Half that is his.

It makes no difference who files.

If you can't resolve your disputes, you an voluntarily submit them to an arbitrator, or there will be a trial and the judge will decide.

It's as long and expensive as the two of you make it. I highly recommend mediation if he will agree.