🤧
Community Property • Married Woman's Special Presumption
CPROP#029
Legal Definition
Prior to 1975, where community property was used to take written title in a married woman's name (but not as a married woman), it is presumed to be her separate property. A husband can, however, rebut this presumption (e.g., by showing husband was concerned about creditors' claims).
Plain English Explanation
Back in the day, before 1975, the way property was handled in a marriage had its own set of rules (due, in part, to sexism). Imagine a married couple buying a house, and they decide to put only the wife's name on the title. Why? Well, it could be for many reasons, like maybe the husband had some debts, and they didn't want the creditors swooping in on this new purchase.
But what happens when they divorce and the husband wants a share of the house? The husband could step up and say, "Hold on, that's not entirely true." He could provide evidence to show that there was a different reason behind putting only her name on it, like maybe they were just trying to avoid those pesky creditors I mentioned.
But what happens when they divorce and the husband wants a share of the house? The husband could step up and say, "Hold on, that's not entirely true." He could provide evidence to show that there was a different reason behind putting only her name on it, like maybe they were just trying to avoid those pesky creditors I mentioned.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: In 1970, Bob and Amy buy a house using their shared savings, but they put only Amy's name on the title. Result: The house is presumed to be Amy's separate property because it's only in her name, despite using shared money.
Hypo 2: In 1974, Bob inherits money from his uncle. He uses this to buy a car, registering it solely in Amy's name. Result: Here, the car is presumed to be Amy's separate property because it's in her name, even though the money came from Bob's inheritance.
Hypo 3: In 1973, Bob and Amy use their joint bank account to purchase a plot of land. They decide to put the land title in Amy's name to protect it from Bob's creditors. Result: The land is presumed to be Amy's separate property. However, Bob can rebut this presumption by showing that the reason for Amy's sole title was to protect against his creditors.
Hypo 2: In 1974, Bob inherits money from his uncle. He uses this to buy a car, registering it solely in Amy's name. Result: Here, the car is presumed to be Amy's separate property because it's in her name, even though the money came from Bob's inheritance.
Hypo 3: In 1973, Bob and Amy use their joint bank account to purchase a plot of land. They decide to put the land title in Amy's name to protect it from Bob's creditors. Result: The land is presumed to be Amy's separate property. However, Bob can rebut this presumption by showing that the reason for Amy's sole title was to protect against his creditors.
