## Facts

- Walter G. Bray and Belle Bray married in 1919 and remained married until Walter’s death in 1960.
- The property in dispute was undisputedly community property.
- Walter operated a food brokerage business he started in 1929 and solely owned at death.
- In 1938, Walter hired his son from a prior marriage, Richard P. Bray, who worked continuously until Walter’s death as a salaried employee.
- In 1944, Walter opened a joint-tenancy savings account in the names of Walter and Richard, using funds withdrawn from the business account; deposits continued thereafter.
- Belle did not know of, and did not consent to, the joint-tenancy account; Walter retained the passbook and control, and no withdrawals occurred during his lifetime.
- At Walter’s death, the joint-tenancy account balance (with interest) was $74,385.88.
- Walter also purchased U.S. savings bonds with community funds registered in the joint names of Walter and Richard, without Belle’s knowledge or consent; their value at death was $10,701.94.
- Evidence indicated Walter intended Richard to receive these assets as a deferred reward for Richard’s contributions to the business, and Walter intended Richard not to learn the extent of the fund until Walter’s death.
- In probate, Richard claimed the account and bonds by survivorship; Belle asserted a one-half community interest, characterizing the transfers as unauthorized gifts under former Civil Code § 172.

## Issues

1. Whether placing community funds into a joint-tenancy account and jointly registered U.S. savings bonds in the father and son’s names, without the wife’s knowledge or consent, constituted an impermissible gift of community property under former Civil Code § 172.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that the transactions were supported by valuable consideration (the son’s services) and therefore were valid transfers within the husband’s management authority over community property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s order approving the final account and distributing the disputed assets to Richard outside the probate estate.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the probate court’s finding that the joint-tenancy account and bonds were established in exchange for valuable consideration consisting of Richard’s long-term services to the business.
- Because the transactions could be treated as compensated transfers rather than gratuitous gifts, Belle was not entitled to recover a one-half community interest in the account or bonds.
- Richard took the account and bonds by survivorship upon Walter’s death.

## Legal Principles

- Under former Civil Code § 172, a husband’s management power over community property is limited as to gratuitous transfers (gifts) made without the wife’s consent.
- A transfer of community property supported by valuable consideration, including consideration in the form of services rendered, is not treated as a prohibited gift merely because the spouse did not know of or consent to it.
- On appeal from probate orders, factual findings—particularly as to intent and consideration—are reviewed for substantial evidence, and will be upheld if reasonably supported by the record.
- The joint-tenancy form (including survivorship features) will be given effect when the underlying transaction is valid and supported by consideration.

## Conclusion

The court upheld survivorship ownership of a community-funded joint-tenancy account and jointly registered savings bonds in favor of the decedent’s son because the probate court could reasonably find the arrangements were supported by valuable consideration arising from the son’s services, placing them outside the rule restricting unilateral gifts of community property without spousal consent.


Estate of Bray, 230 Cal. App. 2d 136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)