California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 662 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: In re: Clifford Allen Brace, Jr., 566 B.R. 13 (9th Cir. BAP 2017).
In re: Clifford Allen Brace, Jr., 566 B.R. 13 (9th Cir. BAP 2017). “They assert that the bankruptcy court should have applied the record title presumption of Cal. Evid. Code § 662 , rather than the community property presumption of Cal.”
In re Obedian, 546 B.R. 409 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016). “Thus, the court also considers the applicability of California Family Code § 852(a), California’s marital property transmutation statute, and California Evidence Code § 662, California’s general presumption of record title.”
Fadel v. DCB United LLC (In Re Fadel), 492 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). “Code § 760 the presumption is that all property acquired during a marriage is community property, Cal. Evid.Code § 662 provides a conflicting presumption that the owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title.”
Episcopal Church Cases, 198 P.3d 66 (Cal. 2009). “…judges"].) [2] "The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title." (Evid. Code, § 662.)”
People v. Semaan, 163 P.3d 949 (Cal. 2007). “Marie’s argument to the contrary, which the Court of Appeal accepted, is that the presumption set out in Evidence Code section 662 compels a different conclusion.”
Nwosu v. Uba, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9005 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “Evidence Code section 662 provides as follows: “The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title.”
Coyne v. De Leo, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “) *375 Finally, Martin contends De Leo's proffered evidence was irrelevant because it cannot, as a matter of law, support the conclusion he and Esclamado continued to have a landlord-tenant relationship.”
Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker, 115 Cal. App. 3d 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “(Evid. Code, § 662; Civ. Code, § 1105.) Since the disputed properties are held in the names of the local church organizations, the latter presumptively own the full beneficial interest in these properties, unless the general church organizations succeed in establishing their…”
Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “696 ]; Evid. Code, § 662; see also 1 Witkin, Cal.”
Darby v. Zimmerman (In Re Popp), 323 B.R. 260 (9th Cir. BAP 2005). “The appellant, however, claimed that the equitable owner of the property was a partnership in which the appellant and the debtors were the two general partners because the property had been acquired using that partnership's funds. Id. at 605-06. To resolve the ownership issue,…”
In Re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson, 169 Cal. App. 4th 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “297 ; Evid. Code, § 662.) The presumption can be overcome only by evidence of an agreement or understanding between the parties that the title reflected in the deed is not what the parties intended.”
Weiner v. Fleischman, 816 P.2d 892 (Cal. 1991). “” Although Weiner’s original complaint stated other causes of action, the case proceeded to trial solely as an action for damages for fraudulent concealment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.