## Facts

- Gloria Alice Bramet Downer (former wife) and George Keith Bramet (former husband) married in 1953 and separated in 1971.
- George worked for Chilcott Enterprises for decades as a senior employee; the company had no retirement program.
- In August 1972, Chilcott Enterprises deeded the W-4 Ranch in Oregon to George and two other employees, each receiving a one-third interest; the transfer was described as a “gift” recognizing loyal service, though the deed recited “good and valuable consideration.”
- Gloria testified George had told her years earlier the ranch would be given in lieu of retirement benefits.
- In December 1972, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement later incorporated into the dissolution judgment, providing that post–March 4, 1972 earnings and acquisitions would be separate property and including mutual releases of claims to after-acquired property.
- The agreement also warranted no undisclosed property existed and required payment of one-half the value if a court later determined a party possessed undisclosed community property at the time of the agreement.
- George did not disclose his ranch interest when the agreement was executed.
- The ranch was sold in 1978; George’s share of proceeds went into conservatorship after he became incompetent.
- In 1980, Gloria sued to establish a community-property interest in the ranch proceeds and sought fraud damages for nondisclosure.
- At the close of Gloria’s case, the trial court granted nonsuit, finding the ranch interest was George’s separate-property gift and the fraud claim failed as a matter of law; it also excluded Gloria’s proffered expert opinion on legal characterization.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff presented substantial evidence that the ranch interest, though labeled a gift, was at least partly compensation for marital-period services and thus community property.
2. Whether nonsuit was proper on the property characterization claim at the close of plaintiff’s case.
3. Whether plaintiff established a prima facie fraud claim based on nondisclosure of the ranch interest when entering the settlement agreement.
4. Whether the trial court properly excluded expert testimony that amounted to a legal conclusion on community vs. separate property characterization.

## Decision

- Reversed the judgment of nonsuit as to the property/proceeds cause of action and remanded for further proceedings.
- Affirmed the judgment of nonsuit as to the fraud cause of action.
- Affirmed the exclusion of expert testimony offering a legal conclusion on asset characterization.
- Applied the nonsuit standard requiring the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff; nonsuit is improper where reasonable factfinders could differ.

## Legal Principles

- On nonsuit, the court must accept plaintiff’s evidence as true, draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, and may grant nonsuit only when there is no substantial evidence to support a verdict for plaintiff.
- Property acquired as a result of a spouse’s labor during marriage is presumptively community property; compensation earned during marriage may remain community even if received after separation.
- An employer’s purported “gift” may be a remuneratory transfer; if substantially motivated by services, it can be characterized as compensation and thus community property in whole or in part.
- Whether a transfer is purely donative or compensatory is ordinarily a question of fact when the evidence supports competing inferences.
- A marital settlement agreement’s later-discovered community property clause can supply a property/contract remedy for undisclosed community assets, limiting tort recovery where the claimed injury is the failure to receive a community share.
- Expert testimony that states legal conclusions (such as whether an asset is community or separate property) is inadmissible as it invades the court’s role.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiff’s evidence could support a finding that the employer’s transfer of a ranch interest was deferred compensation for marital-period services, making nonsuit improper on the community-property claim, but it affirmed nonsuit on fraud because plaintiff failed to show tort damages distinct from the agreement’s property remedy and upheld exclusion of expert legal-opinion testimony.


Downer v. Bramet, 152 Cal. App. 3d 837, 199 Cal. Rptr. 830 (Ct. App. 1984)