California Family Code § 760: The Community Property Presumption

Plain-Language Summary

California Family Code § 760 establishes California’s fundamental community property presumption. In simple terms, this law says that any property acquired by a married person during the marriage (while living in California) belongs equally to both spouses. It doesn’t matter whether the asset is a house, a car, income from work, or any other property – if it was earned or bought during the marriage, it’s presumed to be community property shared by the spouses. “Except as otherwise provided by statute” means there are specific exceptions to this rule (for example, gifts or inheritances received by one spouse are usually that spouse’s separate property). In general, however, Family Code § 760 creates a default rule that assets and debts acquired during a marriage are owned 50/50 by each spouse unless there is evidence or a law that makes a particular asset separate property.

Real-World Examples of § 760 in Action

Marital Earnings Used to Buy Property: John and Jane are married and live in California. During the marriage, Jane saves money from her salary and buys a car, putting only her name on the title. Under Family Code § 760, that car is still presumed to be community property of both John and Jane because it was purchased with marital earnings during the marriage. In a divorce, a court would treat the car as belonging equally to both spouses, regardless of whose name is on it or who paid for it, unless there is proof that the money used was Jane’s separate property.
Inheritance During Marriage: While married, Maria inherits $50,000 from her late father. Even though she received this money in the middle of her marriage, it is not subject to the community property presumption of § 760 because another law (Family Code § 770) says that property acquired by gift or inheritance is separate property. In this example, the $50,000 inheritance remains Maria’s separate property and would not be split with her spouse in a divorce. Family Code § 760 doesn’t override specific statutes that label certain property (like inheritances) as separate.
Title in One Spouse’s Name Only: Alex and Sam buy a house during their marriage, and the deed is recorded only in Alex’s name. Despite the title being in one name, a court applying Family Code § 760 would presume the house is community property because it was acquired during the marriage. The fact that only Alex’s name is on the deed does not by itself make it separate property. Unless there was a written agreement or other legal proof to show Sam gave up any interest, the law will treat the house as owned equally by both spouses under the community property presumption.

Notable Court Opinions Interpreting Family Code § 760

California courts have applied and interpreted § 760 in many cases. Here are a few published decisions that illustrate how the community property presumption works:

In re Marriage of Valli (2014) – The California Supreme Court held that a life insurance policy purchased during marriage with community funds was community property, even though the policy was titled in the wife’s name. In this case, a husband had bought a life insurance policy with marital money and named his wife as the owner and beneficiary. When they divorced, the Supreme Court ruled the policy belonged to the community under § 760 (each spouse had a half-interest) because it was acquired during marriage. The court emphasized that the policy could only become one spouse’s separate property if the legal requirements for a transmutation (changing the character of property by written agreement) were met, which they were not. In short, form of title didn’t overcome the community property presumption.
Speier v. Brace (2020) – The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Family Code § 760 presumption can prevail over contrary title in disputes involving third parties. In this case, a married couple had purchased real estate during their marriage with community (marital) funds but took title as joint tenants. Later, in a bankruptcy context, the question was whether the property should be treated as community property (belonging entirely to the couple’s community) or as separate property due to the joint tenancy title. The Supreme Court held that when spouses acquire property during marriage with community funds, it is presumed to be community property under § 760, even if the deed names them as joint tenants. The form of title (joint tenancy) did not by itself transmute the property into separate property – especially for property acquired after 1985, since California law requires a clear written agreement to change community property into separate property. Thus, the community property presumption stood, meaning the entire property was considered part of the community.
Estate of Murphy (1976) – In this landmark case, the California Supreme Court applied the community property presumption to assets acquired during a marriage when determining a widow’s share of her husband’s estate. The husband’s heirs claimed that certain assets (purchased during the marriage) were the husband’s separate property because they were bought with money from his separate-property bank account. However, the court found there was no clear tracing of the funds to a separate source. As a result, the assets were presumed to be community property under the predecessor of § 760 (and the husband’s estate failed to rebut that presumption). The widow was therefore entitled to half of those assets. Estate of Murphy illustrates that if a spouse (or their estate) asserts an item acquired during marriage is separate property, they bear the burden of proving it with evidence; otherwise, it will be treated as community property.
In re Marriage of Deluca (2019) – This Court of Appeal case shows how § 760 works when a spouse acquires property through an inheritance-related transaction during marriage. In Deluca, a husband received title to an apartment building from his sister as part of a family trust settlement after their father’s death. The trial court initially treated the property as the husband’s separate property (assuming it was like an inheritance). The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the apartment building was community property because the transfer to the husband occurred during the marriage in exchange for payments (it was essentially a purchase of the sister’s share, not a gift or bequest directly from the father). Family Code § 760’s community property presumption applied, meaning the property had to be split as community property. The husband was entitled only to reimbursement for any separate funds he contributed to acquiring that property (under Family Code § 2640). This case highlights that only assets directly inherited or gifted are separate by statute; if a spouse buys out someone’s interest during the marriage (even in an estate settlement), that acquired interest is presumptively community property.

Full Text of California Family Code § 760

California Family Code § 760. Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.

*Nothing on this page should be considered legal advice. This is simply a summary of information found on the Internet. Use at your own risk. This information has not been evaluated by an attorney, and it may be incorrect or obsolete due to changes in the law.