California Family Code § 1000: Liability of Married Persons for Spouse’s Actions

Plain-Language Summary

Family Code § 1000 says that marriage itself does not make one spouse automatically responsible for the other’s accidents or wrongs. In general, a married person is not liable for injury or damage caused by the other spouse, except in situations where the person would have been liable if they were not married. In other words, spouses are usually not on the hook for each other’s torts unless the law independently imposes liability.

If liability does exist, § 1000 specifies how to pay it: if the offending spouse was acting for the benefit of the family (for example, on a work errand), any judgment is paid first from community property, then from the spouse’s separate property. If the act was personal (not for the family’s benefit), then the spouse’s separate property pays first, then any remaining liability may fall on community property. Insurance proceeds pay first. Also, any right to reimbursement from community property must be asserted within seven years after the community property was used to satisfy the debt.

Real-World Examples

  • **Car Accident (Personal Errand):** A husband runs a stop sign while driving to do grocery shopping and injures a pedestrian. Because he was not acting for a community purpose, only his own separate assets (and then community assets if needed) would pay any damages. The wife’s share of community property would not automatically cover the injury.
  • **Car Accident (Work Errand):** A wife, acting as an employee of the family business, causes a crash while driving to a court hearing for the company. Here the act was for the community’s benefit, so community property would satisfy the damages first (and only if exhausted would her separate assets pay).
  • **Intentional Crime:** A spouse deliberately embezzles funds (like in a divorce case). Because this criminal act does not benefit the family, §1000 prevents the innocent spouse or community from having to pay for it. The guilty spouse’s own property alone (or his or her separate share of community property) must cover fines or restitution.

Published Case Law on § 1000

  • In re Marriage of Stitt (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 579 – Wife had embezzled money, and the court held she alone must repay it. Because her acts brought no benefit to the marriage, the community estate was not responsible for the debts. The innocent husband was not required to share in losses from his wife’s criminal misconduct.
  • In re Marriage of Hirsch (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 104 – Husband was sued for losses stemming from his service on a bank board. The court found his board service (and salary) benefited the community. It reversed the trial court and ruled that the community must share the liability for settling his claims, because his acts were for the community’s benefit under §1000.
  • In re Marriage of Bell (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 305 – Wife embezzled $150,000 from her employer. The appellate court held that the community estate was responsible for repaying that amount (since all the stolen money had gone into joint accounts and thus benefited the family). However, the court also held that the wife alone had to pay her legal defense fees and penalties for the crime, reasoning her husband (and their community property) should not bear the cost of her intentional wrongdoing.
  • In re Marriage of Whitman (2023) 316 Cal.Rptr.3d 812 – In a divorce involving a husband convicted of insider trading, the court applied §1000 to several liabilities. It found the husband’s criminal defense fees and fines (including a $250,000 criminal fine and a $935,306 SEC penalty) were his separate debts (community property was not liable). However, $290,000 of related legal fees (incurred in defending an SEC enforcement action that involved the marital business) were paid from community funds, since that expense benefited the community enterprise.

Full Text of California Family Code § 1000

(a) A married person is not liable for any injury or damage caused by the other spouse except in cases where the married person would be liable therefor if the marriage did not exist.

(b) The liability of a married person for death or injury to person or property shall be satisfied as follows:

(1) If the liability of the married person is based upon an act or omission which occurred while the married person was performing an activity for the benefit of the community, the liability shall first be satisfied from the community estate and second from the separate property of the married person.

(2) If the liability of the married person is not based upon an act or omission which occurred while the married person was performing an activity for the benefit of the community, the liability shall first be satisfied from the separate property of the married person and second from the community estate.

(c) This section does not apply to the extent the liability is satisfied out of proceeds of insurance for the liability, whether the proceeds are from property in the community estate or from separate property. Notwithstanding Section 920, no right of reimbursement under this section shall be exercised more than seven years after the spouse in whose favor the right arises has actual knowledge of the application of the property to the satisfaction of the debt.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws and their interpretations can change, and how the law applies to your specific situation may vary. For advice regarding your own circumstances, consult a qualified attorney.