## Facts

- Irene B. Baer and Reginald W. Baer married in 1936; Irene had no substantial separate estate, while Reginald had approximately $27,000.
- The spouses initially maintained a checking account in Irene’s name; in 1943 they closed it and thereafter maintained a joint account.
- From 1939 to 1941, Irene won about $5,800 in puzzle-contest prize money, which was deposited into separate accounts in her name; Reginald did not control these accounts.
- In 1941, a brokerage account was opened in Irene’s name; Reginald also maintained an account with the same brokerage firm.
- Between 1941 and 1944, stock was purchased through Irene’s brokerage account; certificates for multiple issues stood in Irene’s name alone at her death.
- Reginald managed the stock transactions; dividends were deposited into the joint account or used for joint expenses.
- Evidence supported that title was placed in Irene’s name for convenience—so she could access funds without probate delay if Reginald died first—rather than as a gift.

## Issues

1. Whether stock acquired during marriage but titled solely in the wife’s name should be treated as her separate property based on a presumption of gift.
2. Whether the husband’s testimony and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to rebut any gift inference and support a finding of community property.
3. Whether the probate court erred in approving the administrator’s account, including contested credits for funeral expenses and debt-related items.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the decree settling the account and ordering distribution.
- The court upheld the finding that the stock titled in Irene’s name was community property (except a small noncontroversial item).
- The court held that credible evidence, including Reginald’s testimony of no donative intent and corroborating circumstances, supported rebuttal of any gift inference from title.
- The court found no reversible error in the probate court’s allowance of challenged credits in the accounting, including funeral expenses and claimed joint liabilities.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is generally presumed community property, but title in one spouse’s name may create a rebuttable inference that a gift was intended.
- The controlling consideration in deciding whether title in a spouse’s name reflects a gift is the parties’ intent, which may be shown by testimony and corroborating circumstances.
- A trier of fact may credit a spouse’s testimony that no gift was intended; an appellate court will not reweigh that credibility determination when supported by substantial evidence.
- In characterizing marital property, courts consider source of funds, management and control, use of income (such as dividends), and the stated purpose for taking title (including probate-avoidance convenience).
- Probate court approvals of administrator account items, including expense and debt credits, are upheld absent a showing of reversible error on the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed distribution of the estate to the surviving husband after concluding that stock titled solely in the deceased wife’s name was community property because substantial evidence showed the title form was used for convenience, not as a gift, and it also upheld the probate court’s approval of the administrator’s accounting credits.


Estate of Baer, 81 Cal. App. 2d 830, 185 P.2d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)