California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 910 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.

(b)“During marriage” for purposes of this section does not include the period after the date of separation, as defined in Section 70, and before a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 63 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Century Sur. Co. v. Polisso, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Century Sur. Co. v. Polisso, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “*942 “[T]he community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.”

Fadel v. DCB United LLC (In Re Fadel), 492 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). · cites it 3× “She argued, for the first time, that the Property was protected by the codebtor stay under § 1301(a) because, pursuant to Cal. Fam.Code §§ 910 and 914, she was liable on the deed of trust debt incurred by Mr.”

Rooz v. Kimmel (In Re Kimmel), 378 B.R. 630 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). · cites it 3× “Cal. Fam.Code § 910. A. Roberta Kimmel’s Bankruptcy Discharge Although Rooz concedes that the discharge injunction imposed by § 524(a)(2) protects Roberta Kimmel from liability for causes of action asserted in the 1991 Litigation, he contends that the putative community property…”

Gorman v. Tassajara Dev. Corp., 178 Cal. App. 4th 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “There is no claim that Gorman spent extra time in this case representing his wife in addition to the time he spent representing himself.”

United States v. Richard J. Lester, & Sheila Lester, Petitioner-Claimant-Appellant, 85 F.3d 1409 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Fam.Code § 910 (West 1994). 7 . Our decision in In re Soderling is not inconsistent with our holding today.”

United States v. Berger, 574 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Fam.Code § 910(a). Thus, even though Richard is the only spouse who is a party to the judgment for the debt at issue here, under the MVRA and California law the Proceeds’ community property status makes Cornelia liable for that debt.”

In re Obedian, 546 B.R. 409 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “California Family Code § 910(a) and (b) (generally “the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage [except while living separate and apart], regardless of which spouse has management and control of the property and regardless of…”

Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. Cohen, 195 Cal. App. 4th 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “(Fam. Code, § 910, subd. (a).) Since [Attorney] Gorman’s billable hours appear to be entirely attributable to representing his common interests with [his wife], we conclude that the rule of Trope], supra, 11 Cal.”

Ordlock v. Comm'r, 533 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2008). “See Cal. Fam.Code § 910. The absence of any legislative history addressing this issue is further indication that Congress did not intend to preempt community property law for refund purposes.”

Gagan v. Gouyd, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5866 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “) Mary Lois relies upon this section in her appeal. Community property transferred to the nondebtor spouse as part of the distribution of community assets upon dissolution of the marriage are not liable for the debts of the debtor spouse unless the nondebtor spouse was assigned…”

Sturm v. Moyer, 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “" ( Fam. Code, § 910, subd. (a).) Notwithstanding this provision, the earnings of the non-debtor-spouse 8 -- which are community property under Family Code section 760 -- "are not liable for a debt incurred by [the other] spouse before marriage.”

Lezine v. Sec. Pac. Fin. Servs. Inc., 925 P.2d 1002 (Cal. 1996). “In general, *64 “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both…”

Show all 63 citing cases →

— Cal. Family Code § 910(a) — 7 cases

Rooz v. Kimmel (In Re Kimmel), 378 B.R. 630 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). “Cal. Fam.Code § 910. A. Roberta Kimmel’s Bankruptcy Discharge Although Rooz concedes that the discharge injunction imposed by § 524(a)(2) protects Roberta Kimmel from liability for causes of action asserted in the 1991 Litigation, he contends that the putative community property…”

United States v. Berger, 574 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2009). “” Cal. Fam.Code § 910(a). Thus, even though Richard is the only spouse who is a party to the judgment for the debt at issue here, under the MVRA and California law the Proceeds’ community property status makes Cornelia liable for that debt.”

In re Obedian, 546 B.R. 409 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016). “California Family Code § 910(a) and (b) (generally “the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage [except while living separate and apart], regardless of which spouse has management and control of the property and regardless of…”

Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Universal Forms, Labels & Sys., Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1392 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

Tull v. United States, 848 F. Supp. 1466 (E.D. Cal. 1994).

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.