joint title presumption in California

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2016(Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 291 [interpreting predecessor statute to section 2581].) Further, “under section 2581 spouses cannot hold property in joint title while preserving the property’s separate property characterization through oral or implied agreements.” (In re Marriage of Weaver (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 858, 865 .) As pertinent to this case, the joint title presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence in the form of a written document.2 (§ 2581; In re Marriage of Weaver (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 478, 486 .) 2 The joint title presumption can also be overcome by p

2016The joint title presumption can also be overcome by proof of undue influence by one spouse over another. ( Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at pp. 301-302, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 673 .) In this case, however, there is no allegation of undue influence to overcome the joint title presumption.

2016(In re Marriage of Neal (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 117, 124, fn. 12 (Neal), disapproved on other grounds in In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751, 758, fn. 8 ; In re Marriage of Fabian (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440, 451, fn. 13 .) The four investment accounts at issue here (Franklin Templeton Nos. 9961, 3412, 0768, and Pioneer No. 2830) are all held in joint title form.

2016(In re Marriage of Neal (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 117, 124, fn. 12 (Neal), disapproved on other grounds in In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751, 758, fn. 8 ; In re Marriage of Fabian (1986) 41 Cal.3d 440, 451, fn. 13 .) The four investment accounts at issue here (Franklin Templeton Nos. 9961, 3412, 0768, and Pioneer No. 2830) are all held in joint title form.

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Buol (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751 , 755, 218 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 705 P.2d 354 ["Under [former Civil Code section 4800.1 20 ] the only means of rebutting the presumption that property acquired during marriage in joint tenancy is community property is by providing evidence of a written agreement that the property is separate property"].) We are not persuaded by G.C.'s contention that "[u]nder Lucas , the joint title presumption of community property was rebutted." The Legislature adopted section 2581's predecessor statute (former Civil Code section 4800.1 ) "for the purpose of c

2015“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that a court ‘should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining such intent ‘[t]he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 268.) “ ‘ “We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.” ’ [Citation.

2015“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that a court ‘should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining such intent ‘[t]he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 268.) “ ‘ “We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.” ’ [Citation.

2015“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that a court ‘should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining such intent ‘[t]he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 268.) “ ‘ “We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.” ’ [Citation.

2015“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that a court ‘should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining such intent ‘[t]he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 268.) “ ‘ “We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.” ’ [Citation.

2015“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that a court ‘should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining such intent ‘[t]he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 268.) “ ‘ “We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.” ’ [Citation.

2015(In re Marriage of Lafkas (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 921, 926 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 484 ].) c.

2015(In re Marriage of Lafkas (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 921, 926 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 484 ].) c.