(a)Notwithstanding Section 913, a married person is personally liable for the following debts incurred by the person’s spouse during marriage:
(1)A debt incurred for necessaries of life of the person’s spouse before the date of separation of the spouses.
(2)Except as provided in Section 4302, a debt incurred for common necessaries of life of the person’s spouse after the date of separation of the spouses.
(b)The separate property of a married person may be applied to the satisfaction of a debt for which the person is personally liable pursuant to this section.
If separate property is so applied at a time when nonexempt property in the community estate or separate property of the person’s spouse is available but is not applied to the satisfaction of the debt, the married person is entitled to reimbursement to the extent such property was available.
(c)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), the statute of limitations set forth in Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply if the spouse for whom the married person is personally liable dies.
(2)If the surviving spouse had actual knowledge of the debt prior to expiration of the period set forth in Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the personal representative of the deceased spouse’s estate failed to provide the creditor asserting the
claim under this section with a timely written notice of the probate administration of the estate in the manner provided for pursuant to Section 9050 of the Probate Code, the statute of limitations set forth in Section 337 or 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable, shall apply.
(d)For purposes of this section, “date of separation” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 70.
Notes of Decisions
Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, 6 P.3d 713 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 12× “Family Code section 914 provides, in pertinent part: "(a) Notwithstanding Section 913, a married person is personally liable for the following debts incurred by the person's spouse during marriage: [¶] (1) A debt incurred for necessaries of life of the person's spouse while the…”
Fadel v. DCB United LLC (In Re Fadel), 492 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013).
· cites it 8× “Fadel raised two of her previous arguments that (1) Cal. Fam.Code §§ 914 and 920 gave her a pro tanto community property interest in the Property on the petition date due to her right to reimbursement, which she argued could be determined outside of dissolution, and (2) because…”
Ader v. Est. of Felger, 375 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“2 (a) bars Ader’s claims against the Estate in California. But that statute is not a nonclaim statute.”
Mares v. Baughman, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8527 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“(Fam. Code, § 914.) County also asserted that section 23004.”
Diaz v. Kubler Corp., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
· cites it 2× “] Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of two statutes: California Civil Code section 3289 and California Family Code section 914(a). The Court takes judicial notice of California Civil Code section 3289 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.”
Marriage of Duvigneaud CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” (Fam. Code, § 914, subd. (b).) Under section 2640, subdivision (b) of the Family Code, unless there is a written agreement specifying otherwise, at the time of the division of the community estate, each party “shall be reimbursed for [that] party’s contributions to the…”
Reger v. Essex Bank (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2021).
“” 8 Thus, Counter-Claimant’s relief stating that Marie Landes is bound to some agreement 9 between Debtor and Counter-Claimant, appears to be erroneous as a matter of California law.”
— Cal. Family Code § 914(a) — 2 cases
Fadel v. DCB United LLC (In Re Fadel), 492 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013).
“Fadel raised two of her previous arguments that (1) Cal. Fam.Code §§ 914 and 920 gave her a pro tanto community property interest in the Property on the petition date due to her right to reimbursement, which she argued could be determined outside of dissolution, and (2) because…”
Diaz v. Kubler Corp., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
“] Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of two statutes: California Civil Code section 3289 and California Family Code section 914(a). The Court takes judicial notice of California Civil Code section 3289 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.”
— Cal. Family Code § 914(b) — 1 case
Fadel v. DCB United LLC (In Re Fadel), 492 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013).
“Fadel raised two of her previous arguments that (1) Cal. Fam.Code §§ 914 and 920 gave her a pro tanto community property interest in the Property on the petition date due to her right to reimbursement, which she argued could be determined outside of dissolution, and (2) because…”
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.