Cal. Codes » Family Code / DIVISION 7. DIVISION OF PROPERTY / PART 3. PRESUMPTION CONCERNING PROPERTY HELD IN JOINT FORM
California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 2581 (2026)

Presumption Concerning Property Held In Joint Form

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of division of property on dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties, property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form, including property held in tenancy in common, joint tenancy, or tenancy by the entirety, or as community property, is presumed to be community property. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following:

(a)A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property.

(b)Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Haines, 33 Cal. App. 4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Haines, 33 Cal. App. 4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “1 [Fam. Code, § 2581] provided in pertinent part; “(b) For the purpose of division of property upon dissolution of marriage or legal separation, property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form, including property held in tenancy in common, joint tenancy, tenancy…”
Marr. of Valli, 324 P.3d 274 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “” (Fam. Code, § 2581; see Civ. Code, former § 5110.”
In Re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson, 169 Cal. App. 4th 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” (Fam. Code, § 2581.) This case concerns a dispute between Brooks and ECG, and does not involve the division of property on dissolution.”
Fadel v. DCB United LLC (In Re Fadel), 492 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). “1980), rev’d on other grounds by Cal. Fam.Code § 2581 (citing Socol v. King, 36 Cal.”
United States v. Boyce, 38 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (C.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “Although California Family Code § 2581 creates a presumption that property acquired during a marriage in joint tenancy is community property, this presumption applies only "for the purpose of property on dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties[.”
In re: Clifford Allen Brace, Jr., 566 B.R. 13 (9th Cir. BAP 2017). “Code § 662 might apply in litigation between spouses and third parties: Significantly, the statutory presumption regarding property in the form of joint tenancy applies “[fjor the purpose of division of property on dissolution of marriage.”
Clifford Brace, Jr. v. Steven Speier, 908 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2018). “Cal. Fam. Code § 2581 . According to the California Family Code, to change the nature or characterization of property, spouses may transmute the property by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration.”
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “(Fam. Code, § 2581; In re Marriage of Hilke, supra, 4 Cal.”
Collins v. Wolf, 591 B.R. 752 (S.D. Cal. 2018). “) Appellants acknowledge that Valli explicitly criticized a portion of Summers ' holding, but contend that " Valli disapproved only the Ninth Circuit's conclusion in Summers that a spousal purchase from a third party could never be subject to the statutory transmutation…”
Gamache v. Smurro, 2006 VT 67 (Vt. 2006). “The proper interpretation of the deed, and the property interest it creates, is addressed in part by a California statute, California Family Code § 2581, 3 which provides: § 2581.”
Pulliam v. Layton, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1337 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “5 Family Code section 2581 provides: “For the purpose of division of property on dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties, property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form, including property held in tenancy in common, joint tenancy, or tenancy by…”
Est. of Castiglioni, 40 Cal. App. 4th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “(Fam. Code, § 2581.) The presumption is rebuttable only by (a) “[a] clear *387 statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property,” or (b) “[p]roof that the parties have…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
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.