Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
inherited family property - reply
Thank You for your replies, I could figure out how to reply to the old message so I wrote a new message. Yes both parties have people representing them. The divorce is happing after 26 years of marriage. On the 800k property, there were 7 siblings, when the sibling�s parents passed away; the property was divided 7 ways. Sally inherited 1/7th of the property and used that 1/7th to help buy out the rest of the siblings. Now Sally and Bob are getting divorce, and does this mean 1/7th of the property is automatically Sally�s. When the 800k house was sold the 800k property was in Sally�s name first and then it was put into Bob�s and Sally�s name. Does this matter or play into effect? The 300k property was bought by both Bob and Sally. Let me know if this makes if clearer?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: inherited family property - reply
It would be the other 6/7, not the other 7/8, but otherwise Mr. Olden is on the right track. What he's trying to say is that your attempts to describe the situation do nothing but create additional mysteries.
For example, when the 800k property was sold, it was either in Sally's name, or it was in both names; it cannot be both ways at the same time.
Reading through the mist and haze, my hunch is that you are asking about separate-property tracing rules under California's community-property law.
The essence of the law is that a gift or inheritance received by one spouse is that spouse's separate property, and not community property.
Further, additional or replacement property that is acquired with the proceeds of separate property is also separate property.
For example, if Wife inherits 100 shares of XYZ from her grandfather, it is hers alone. When it pays a dividend, the dividend is also her separate property. If Wife sells the XYZ stock and reinvests in a race horse, and the horse is a big winner, the winnings are Wife's, as are the future profits from putting the horse out to stud.
There is a qualification to this formula. If Wife commingles dividend checks with household funds in the couple's joint checking account, their separate-property character begins to erode. The more the commingling, the greater the chance that the separate property will become community property on the theory that the prolonged commingling without record-keeping implies a gift of the separate property to the community.
Further, if Husband or the marital community contribute to the feeding, boarding, training, etc. of the race horse, there is a strong possibility that the horse will become, to some extent, a community asset and not entirely Wife's separate property.
Now your question suggests that the 800k property slid back and forth from siblings to Wife to Husband & Wife, but does not furnish any explanation as to whether it was given as a gift (this happens!!!), sold or exchanged for value, or whatever. 800k properties don't normally change hands (you use the phrase "in X's name" which is, at least usually, pussyfooting terminology for "is legally owned by") without good cause, such as someone paying a bunch of money and/or incurring a whole lot of debt.
Finally, there is nothing "automatic" about the ownership of a particular asset of a divorcing couple after the final decree. There is a rather firm rule that each spouse keeps his or her separate property and that the community property is divided equally. However, the divorcing couple can agree to divide their property otherwise. For example, Husband may get some of Wife's separate property in exchange for giving up an equivalent amount of his half of the community property.
Re: inherited family property - reply
Well here we go again. entiende ingles?????? Anything she inherits is hers. Therefore given the facts as you put them she used her inheritance to buy out the other 7/8 in the property. How she'd use $100,000 to buy out another 700 I don't understand but she's good at what she does. The $800,000 property if it is in her name alone is all hers you lose brother. Now once the property once and her name is placed in both names it depends upon numbers of factors. What form of title was used in what was the intent at the time of the placement into both names. Generally speaking if I were you I would argue it's a gift so that you have one-half in each name and one-half ownership in those assets in each party. The $300,000 piece of property if in both names means joint ownership. The form of title is very important begin. Let's get it straight to stop typing questions on the Internet and get a real attorney where the attorney cast the questions and get the information necessary to properly advise you and answer your questions. In the same way I answered the last timei have been practicing law in this speciality for over 30 years in the san francisco bay area and if you wish to consult with me you can contact me at 925-945-6000.