Estate of Bachels CA3

DISCUSSION

Appellants Michael and Daniel Turner argue the trial court erred in concluding the property was separate property. They argue that pursuant to section 2581, the property, which was acquired during marriage in joint form, was presumptively community property when the couple divorced in 1967. They further reason that since the divorce decree awarded “the community property” to Andrew, Jacqueline’s interest in the property was terminated upon their divorce. This argument assumes: (1) that the Lone Star Mine was community property, and (2) that the settlement agreement transferred all of the couple’s community property to Andrew. We shall conclude that the Lone Star Mine was not community property. Therefore, we need not reach the issue of whether the settlement agreement transferred all of the couple’s community property to Andrew. Our determination that the Lone Star Mine was not community property also answers appellants’ alternative argument that the property was community property that was not

References to a code section are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated.

3 mentioned in the divorce decree, and was therefore a tenancy in common, with each party…