inter-spousal deed instructions

[axescot]

Jurisdiction

California

Been married almost 10 years now. Less than a year after we got married, I refinanced my condo (which I bought many years before our marriage) and my wife signed an inter-spousal deed instructions so that all ownership of the condo belongs to me, even if common property is used to pay for it. 4 years after we got married, I purchased a house. Again, she signed an inter-spousal deed instructions so that all ownership of the house belongs to me, even if common property is used to pay for it. She's a stay at home mother and I pay for both through my work and renting the condo which I manage.

Lately, things have been rough and divorce has come up. She claims that she has a right to the property even if she signed those documents. It's true English is her second language but she knew what she was signing. Not only did we talk about it, but it is the culture where we are from that the property belongs to the husband because he is paying for it through work. Also, she is a lawyer where we are from and she knows what to say to get around legal documents like these. I was wondering if she truly has a right to the property since she knowingly signed these documents, and did so twice?

More than once in our marriage, she mentions money and my inheritance from my parents. Sometimes I get the feeling she thinks about that a lot. Also, the house I purchased from my father who gave me the down payment as inheritance. There is documentation in the purchase papers for that. Does she still have a claim to it if I used my inheritance to purchase it?

 

[welkin]

She claims that she has a right to the property even if she signed those documents.

Are both properties titled in your name only? I would assume your condo is but what about the house?

I'm not really sure what you mean by inter-spousal deed instructions. I do know what an interspousal transfer deed is but that is used if the property is or was in both names or as husband and wife. Did you have these instructions drafted by an attorney and were they recorded?

From what I can see in the CA case law, she would not have claim to the properties as community property, unless she claims that you had undue influence over her to sign. And, you would have to prove you did not.

You should talk to a local family law attorney and have them review what she signed and explain the law to you.

There is plenty of CA case law on the subject on Google Scholar that will explain how these transfers can affect community property.

 

[adjusterjack]

inter-spousal deed instructions

The phrase does not come up in a search. I suspect it's a euphemism for a post-nuptial agreement.

Does she still have a claim to it if I used my inheritance to purchase it?

Read what this attorney's page has to say about post-nuptial agreements, specifically the common grounds for contesting a post-nuptial agreement.

Your Complete Guide to California Postnuptial Agreements

What is a postnuptial agreement? These agreements can be beneficial to couples in community property states like California. Learn more today.

www.hepnerpagan.com

She's a stay at home mother

I think that gives her a good shot at getting those agreements tossed if you are intending to leave her with little or nothing.

it is the culture where we are from that the property belongs to the husband

In the culture where you are from are wives also property of the husband?

 

[welkin]

The phrase does not come up in a search. I suspect it's a euphemism for a post-nuptial agreement.



Read what this attorney's page has to say about post-nuptial agreements, specifically the common grounds for contesting a post-nuptial agreement.

Your Complete Guide to California Postnuptial Agreements

What is a postnuptial agreement? These agreements can be beneficial to couples in community property states like California. Learn more today.

www.hepnerpagan.com

I think that gives her a good shot at getting those agreements tossed if you are intending to leave her with little or nothing.



In the culture where you are from are wives also property of the husband?

Upon a bunch more research, I have learned that what OP is speaking about (I think) is what is called a transmutational agreement where what might be considered community property can be agreed not to be. They are legal and enforceable in California.

OP is concerned that he used comingled funds to, in some ways, support those properties. But that in itself does not make the properties community property. See California Code, Family Code - FAM § 2640

Pay attention to paragraph (c)

California Code, Family Code - FAM § 2640
Current as of January 01, 2023

(a) "Contributions to the acquisition of * * * property," as used in this section, include downpayments, payments for improvements, and payments that reduce the principal of a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of the property but do not include payments of interest on the loan or payments made for maintenance, insurance, or taxation of the property.

(b) In the division of the community estate under this division, unless a party has made a written waiver of the right to reimbursement or has signed a writing that has the effect of a waiver, the party shall be reimbursed for the party's contributions to the acquisition of property of the community property estate to the extent the party traces the contributions to a separate property source. The amount reimbursed shall be without interest or adjustment for change in monetary values and may not exceed the net value of the property at the time of the division.

(c) A party shall be reimbursed for the party's separate property contributions to the acquisition of property of the other spouse's separate property estate during the marriage, unless there has been a transmutation in writing pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 850) of Part 2 of Division 4, or a written waiver of the right to reimbursement. The amount reimbursed shall be without interest or adjustment for change in monetary values and may not exceed the net value of the property at the time of the division.

Chapter 5 Section 850

850. Subject to Sections 851 to 853, inclusive, married persons may by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration, do any of the following:

(a) Transmute community property to separate property of either spouse.

(b) Transmute separate property of either spouse to community property.

(c) Transmute separate property of one spouse to separate property of the other spouse.
(Enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. Operative January 1, 1994.)

Also read sections 851 to 853.

This is obviously a complicated area of the CA law and I reiterate that OP needs the advice of a family lawyer. But it looks to me from what little we know that this agreement may well indeed be enforceable in a divorce.

 

[cbg]

OP, with regards to your report, the poster asked you whether or not, in your culture, wives were considered the property of their husband. It was a question ,not a declarative statement.

 

[axescot]

@welkin My concern is: can she contest it claiming she didn't understand what she was signing? As mentioned, we talked about it and I didn't force her into it. Also, because inheritance was used to purchase the house, doesn't that mean she does not have a claim to at least that percentage that was used to purchase the house?

@adjusterjack The comment about our culture treats wives as property is uncultured and racist. I suggest you learn about other cultures. You will find how other cultures treat women better than American culture.

 

[cbg]

@axescot Please read my note directly above your most recent one.

 

[welkin]

can she contest it claiming she didn't understand what she was signing?

Yes, of course she can. She can because under CA law, there is a presumption that the spouse that gains the advantage in a transmutational agreement did so by using undue influence. You would have to rebut this presumption otherwise the court can set aside the transaction on the presumption that it was made with undue influence. You have the burden of proof to prove that you didn't by a preponderance of the evidence and that she understood fully what she was signing and did sign willingly.

Pursuant to California Family Code section 721 spouses have fiduciary duties when entering a transaction with each other. This includes "a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing," and neither spouse "shall take any unfair advantage of the other." When one spouse gains an advantage over the other in an interspousal transaction, a presumption of undue influence arises. It is up to the advantaged spouse to show the court that the other spouse was not unduly influenced in the transaction.

To rebut the presumption of undue influence, the advantaged spouse must show the court by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the interspousal transaction was (1) "freely and voluntarily made," (2) "with full knowledge of all the facts," and (3) "with a complete understanding of the effect of the transfer." In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 301.

Had you both had representation at the time these agreements were signed, you wouldn't have to prove it.

 

[adjusterjack]

@adjusterjack The comment about our culture treats wives as property is uncultured and racist. I suggest you learn about other cultures. You will find how other cultures treat women better than American culture.

Actually, it was sarcasm, based on the implication in your questions that you wish to retain the lion's share of your assets, leaving a wife and mother with little or nothing.

By the way, culture and race are two different things. A comment about one is not a comment about the other. There was a time long ago in the US when women were treated as chattel and the treatment had nothing to do with race.

can she contest it claiming she didn't understand what she was signing?

Yes. You've already said that English wasn't her first language. And your reference to your culture where men own the property suggests that women have few rights and are trained from birth to acquiesce to the demands of their husbands. That gave you a powerful advantage when you "asked" her to sign those documents. Now, after several years of Americanization, she knows better.

American women would not agree to post nuptial agreements without some undue influence going on, or at least significant financial incentive.

 

[axescot]

Divorce was her idea, not mine, so she is doing the leaving, not me leaving a wife and mother. Prejudice towards culture is still prejudice. And woman have rights, but they are specifically divided where the husband keeps real estate. "After several years of Americanization" as in when she was taking English classes and learning the language for 4 years before signing the agreement for the house.

Everything you say is based on assumption. She is not a weak, stupid victim. Actually she was a lawyer and knows how to fight legal matters.

 

[Zigner]

Did she have an attorney advising her at the time of signing who was not the same attorney as was representing you? If not, she's in a much better place to argue that the document should not be enforced. Also, you really do come across as believing you pulled the wool over her eyes and now are upset that your plan may not work. Just sayin'

 

[axescot]

Did she have an attorney advising her at the time of signing who was not the same attorney as was representing you? If not, she's in a much better place to argue that the document should not be enforced. Also, you really do come across as believing you pulled the wool over her eyes and now are upset that your plan may not work. Just sayin'

How do I come across as having pulled the wool over her eyes?

 

[Zigner]

SMH