Estate of MacDonald - 51 Cal. 3d 262, 272 Cal. Rptr. 153, 794 P.2d 911 (1990)

Rule:

A writing signed by the adversely affected spouse is not an "express declaration" for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code § 5110.730(a) unless it contains language which expressly states that the characterization or ownership of the property is being changed.

Facts:

In an action by a child of decedent by a previous marriage, against decedent's husband to establish decedent's community property interest in funds derived from the husband's pension benefits, held in individual retirement accounts (IRA) accounts, the trial court found that, in signing the consent paragraphs to agreements in connection with the accounts, decedent intended to waive any community property interest in the pension funds and to transmute her community property share of those funds into the husband's separate property. The trial court thus denied the petition. The Court of Appealv reversed, holding the agreements did not satisfy the writing requirement of Civ. Code, § 5110.730, subd. (a), governing transmutation of property.

Issue:

Did the agreements satisfy the writing requirement of Civ. Code, § 5110.730, subd. (a), governing transmutation of property?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court held a writing signed by the adversely affected spouse of a transmutation of property is not an "express declaration" for the purposes of Civ. Code, § 5110.730, subd. (a), unless it contains language which expressly states that the characterization or ownership of the property is being changed. The court held the statute must be construed to preclude reference to extrinsic evidence in the proof of transmutations, and held the writing signed by the wife failed to satisfy the "express declaration" requirement of the statute.