California Family Code § 752: Management and Control of Separate Property

Plain-Language Summary

California Family Code Section 752 states that, unless a law specifically says otherwise, each spouse has no ownership interest in the other spouse’s separate property. In simple terms, this means any property that is classified as one spouse’s separate property (for example, assets owned before the marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance to one spouse alone) belongs solely to that spouse. The other spouse has no automatic claim to or control over such separate property just because they are married. Section 752 essentially draws a clear line: **community property** (generally property acquired during the marriage by either spouse) is co-owned by both spouses, but **separate property** of one spouse remains entirely that spouse’s and is not co-owned or controlled by the other.

This law protects each spouse’s separate assets. For instance, if one spouse owned a business or a home before getting married, the other spouse doesn’t gain an ownership share in that business or home merely by virtue of the marriage. Likewise, if during the marriage one spouse receives a personal gift or inheritance (which by law is separate property), Section 752 ensures the other spouse has no inherent rights to that gift or inheritance. The only time this would change is if some other statute or legal action (like a valid written agreement between the spouses, known as a transmutation, or a statutory exception) provides otherwise. In summary, **§ 752 means “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours”** when it comes to separate property, unless both spouses or the law explicitly decide to convert it into shared property.

Real-World Examples

Inherited Money: During their marriage, Alice inherits $50,000 from her grandmother and keeps it in a bank account in her name only. Under § 752, that inheritance is Alice’s separate property. Her husband Bob has no legal interest in or claim to that $50,000. If Bob wanted to use some of Alice’s inheritance, he would need Alice’s permission, since the money belongs solely to her.
Property Owned Before Marriage: Before marrying, John owns a house by himself. After the wedding, John’s house remains his separate property (absent any agreement to share or change it). His wife, Mary, doesn’t automatically gain ownership or control of the house under § 752. Mary couldn’t mortgage or sell John’s house because she has no ownership interest in it. If they divorce, the house would not be treated as community property to be divided – it would remain John’s property (unless there was a written agreement during the marriage to make it community property).
No Interest in Separate Business: Suppose during the marriage, Maria starts a business using only funds she had before marriage, and she keeps the business entirely in her name. That business is Maria’s separate property. Her spouse, Kevin, doesn’t own any portion of the company under § 752. Kevin can’t make decisions for the company or claim its profits as his, because the law recognizes that the business is Maria’s separate asset. (However, if Kevin contributed labor or community funds to the business, the community might have a right to some reimbursement or a share of increased value, but Kevin still wouldn’t own the business itself – he would only have a claim for compensation under other legal principles, not an ownership interest.)
Keeping Separate Funds Separate: Erin has a savings account from before marriage with $10,000 (her separate property). She never mixes these funds with any joint accounts. Under § 752, her husband Liam has no interest in that account. She doesn’t need Liam’s consent to spend or manage that $10,000 because it’s legally not part of the community property. If Erin passes away or the couple divorces, that account remains Erin’s property alone, and Liam would generally have no claim to it as community property.

Published Case Law on § 752

In re Marriage of Walker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1408 – This appellate case involved a wife managing a retirement account that was originally the husband’s separate property. The court noted that under § 752, one spouse normally has no interest in the other’s separate property. However, in this situation the account had become so mixed with community funds that it lost its separate property status. The court found the retirement account was community property (because the separate and community contributions were commingled and couldn’t be traced apart), which meant the wife had a fiduciary duty in managing it. The wife was held accountable for depleting the account without the husband’s knowledge. Walker illustrates that while § 752 protects separate property, if separate funds get commingled indistinguishably with community property, the entire asset may be treated as community property – and then both spouses have equal rights and responsibilities in it.
In re Marriage of Ciprari (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83 – In this case, a husband had large investment accounts containing both separate and community funds. The wife argued a substantial portion of those accounts should be treated as community property. The husband, however, used detailed tracing to show which portions of the investments were purchased with his separate property funds. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision accepting the husband’s tracing analysis. The ruling emphasized that, under § 752, a spouse’s separate property remains their own unless there’s clear proof otherwise. Because the husband could trace and identify the separate property contributions, those investments stayed his separate property, and the wife had no ownership interest in them. Ciprari demonstrates how courts apply § 752: if an asset acquired during marriage can be traced to one spouse’s separate funds, the other spouse has no interest in that asset.
In re Marriage of Benson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1096 – This California Supreme Court case underscored the principle of § 752 in the context of transmutation (agreements to change property from separate to community). In Benson, the husband claimed an oral agreement existed in which each spouse would give up their interest in certain property of the other (the wife would relinquish rights to his retirement accounts, and he would relinquish rights to a house). The wife never signed a written agreement to that effect, as required by law. The Supreme Court held that without a valid written transmutation, the husband had no interest in the wife’s separate property retirement accounts (and she had no interest in the house that was in his name). In reaching this decision, the Court reinforced § 752’s concept: one spouse cannot obtain an interest in the other’s separate property by an informal promise or assumption – it can only happen by following the proper legal procedures. Thus, the wife’s retirement accounts remained entirely her separate property, and the husband’s attempt to claim an interest in them was rejected.

Full Text of California Family Code § 752

Family Code § 752. Except as otherwise provided by statute, neither spouse has any interest in the separate property of the other.

*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.