Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Estate of MacDonaldgreen2 sentences1999On September 8, 1997, the trial court filed its "Order Following Trial on Bifurcated Issue: Validity of Transmutations Pursuant to Family Law Code, Section 852(a)." This order concluded: "The three alleged transfers of security interests ... are not invalid as having failed to meet the requirements of Family Code Section 852(a) and Estate of MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262 , 272 Cal. Rptr. 153 , 794 P.2d 911 ." Also on September 8 the trial court filed its order certifying probable cause for immediate appeal of its order following trial. 1999On September 8, 1997, the trial court filed its “Order Following Trial on Bifurcated Issue: Validity of Transmutations Pursuant to Family Law Code, Section 852(a).” This order concluded: “The three alleged transfers of security interests . . . are not invalid as having failed to meet the requirements of Family Code Section 852(a) and Estate of MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262 .” Also on September 8 the trial court filed its order certifying probable cause for immediate appeal of its order following trial. | 1 | 3 |
Safarian v. Govgassiangreen1 sentence2022(Safarian, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 1059.) This is because section 852 “establishes a rule of evidence, similar to the statute of frauds,” and does not benefit the public at large. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Bensongreen2 sentences2020The property rights provided to spouses by statute may be altered through a marital property agreement. (§ 1500; Litke O'Farrell, LLC v. Tipton (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 .) Married people can transmute community property to separate and separate property to community by agreement or transfer. (§ 850, subds. (a) & (b).)3 Under section 852, a transmutation “is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.” (§ 852, subd. (a).)4 The writing must contain an “ex 2020The property rights provided to spouses by statute may be altered through a marital property agreement. (§ 1500; Litke O'Farrell, LLC v. Tipton (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 .) Married people can transmute community property to separate and separate property to community by agreement or transfer. (§ 850, subds. (a) & (b).)3 Under section 852, a transmutation “is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.” (§ 852, subd. (a).)4 The writing must contain an “ex | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
O'Brien v. O'Brien
green
1 sentence2022(O’Brien v. O’Brien (1925) 197 Cal. 577, 586 .) In Safarian, we held that a marital property agreement that does not meet the transmutation requirements of Family Code section 852 (section 852) is voidable by the parties and cannot be challenged as void by third parties. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.
green
1 sentence2020Proc., § 367 [action must be brought by or on behalf of the real party in interest]; Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980, 992 .)” (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 936 , fn. omitted (Yvanova).) Whether a third party can invalidate a transmutation agreement that fails to meet the requirements of section 852 depends whether the defective agreement is void or simply voidable. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2020Proc., § 367 [action must be brought by or on behalf of the real party in interest]; Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980, 992 .)” (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 936 , fn. omitted (Yvanova).) Whether a third party can invalidate a transmutation agreement that fails to meet the requirements of section 852 depends whether the defective agreement is void or simply voidable. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Begian v. Sarajian (In re Begian)
green
1 sentence2020(In re Marriage of Begian & Sarajian (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 506, 512 .) 12 Statutory Scheme Governing Transmutations To determine whether third parties have the power to invalidate marital property agreements that fail to meet the requirements of section 852, we must review the statutory scheme governing transmutations. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
O'Farrell v. Tipton
green
1 sentence2020The property rights provided to spouses by statute may be altered through a marital property agreement. (§ 1500; Litke O'Farrell, LLC v. Tipton (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 .) Married people can transmute community property to separate and separate property to community by agreement or transfer. (§ 850, subds. (a) & (b).)3 Under section 852, a transmutation “is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.” (§ 852, subd. (a).)4 The writing must contain an “ex | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Marr. of Valli
green
1 sentence2015Code § 850.) A transmutation of property, however, 'is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.' (Id., § 852, subd. (a).) To satisfy the requirement of an 'express declaration,' a writing signed by the adversely affected spouse must expressly state that the character or ownership of the property at issue is being changed. [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Valli (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1396, 1400 .) Because, while married, each spouse owes the other the duties of a fi | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.