In Re Marriage of Haines

Caution
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 259·33 Cal. App. 4th 277·39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 673·95 Daily Journal DAR 3597·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2126
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 1995D016555California8,828 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

This case presents the issue of whether Evidence Code section 662, the common law presumption in favor of title, and its concomitant requirement of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption, properly apply in family law proceedings when there is a conflict with the presumption that a husband and wife occupy a confidential relationship in their transactions with each other.

Judy A. Haines appeals a portion of a judgment of dissolution entered November 1, 1990, granting Clarence Haines reimbursement for his separate property contribution to the acquisition of the couple’s residence.

Judy’s major assignment of error is the trial court improperly applied section 662, holding her to the burden of clear and convincing evidence in her attempts to void a 1987 quitclaim deed in which she deeded her interests in the residence to Clarence. Clarence later conveyed the residence to himself and Judy as joint tenants, thereby restoring the status of the residence to community property, which was the status of the property at the time of the dissolution. In the dissolution proceeding, the trial court awarded Clarence reimbursement for this separate property contribution.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.