## Facts

- Raul Miramontes-Najera and Evangelina B. Miramontes married in 1956 and remained married until Raul’s death in October 2000.
- Beginning in 1998, Raul used community-property funds, without Evangelina’s consent, to place approximately $802,996 into nine pay-on-death (P.O.D.) accounts naming third-party beneficiaries.
- The dispute on appeal concerned P.O.D. accounts naming Silvia Lizarraga Preciado’s minor children, including two $100,000 money-market accounts and a $3,000 certificate of deposit (one of which was later paid to Evangelina during the litigation).
- Evangelina received other community property worth about $1.3 million, which exceeded one-half of the total community estate.
- Evangelina filed a petition under California Probate Code § 5021 seeking to set aside transfers of her one-half community interest in the P.O.D. accounts on an account-by-account basis.
- The trial court denied relief, reasoning Raul could dispose of one-half of the community property and Evangelina could not claim one-half of each P.O.D. account because she had already received more than one-half of the total community estate.

## Issues

1. Under Probate Code § 5021, may a nonconsenting surviving spouse enforce her one-half community-property interest on an asset-by-asset basis against P.O.D. accounts funded with community property, even if she has already received more than one-half of the overall community estate?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the orders denying Evangelina’s § 5021 petition and remanded with directions to grant relief consistent with its interpretation.
- The court held, as a matter of first impression, that Probate Code § 5021 codified (and did not displace) the asset-by-asset rule recognized in Estate of Wilson.
- The court rejected the respondents’ argument that § 5021 imposes a global limitation based on the surviving spouse’s net share of the total community estate.
- Because Evangelina did not consent to the transfers, she was entitled to have her one-half community interest set aside in each challenged P.O.D. account.

## Legal Principles

- Each spouse has a vested one-half interest in each item of community property; absent consent, one spouse cannot divest the other’s one-half interest through unilateral transfers.
- Probate Code § 5021 provides a mechanism for a surviving spouse to set aside nonconsensual nontestamentary transfers of community property (including P.O.D. accounts) to the extent of the spouse’s one-half community interest.
- A nonconsenting surviving spouse may enforce the one-half community interest on an asset-by-asset basis, even if the spouse’s aggregate recovery from the community estate would exceed one-half overall.
- Statutory interpretation of § 5021 must be read in light of established community-property rules and the absence of legislative intent to impose an aggregate, estate-wide cap on recovery for particular nonconsensual transfers.

## Conclusion

The court held that Probate Code § 5021 preserves a surviving spouse’s right to recover her one-half community interest from specific P.O.D. accounts funded with community property without her consent, measured asset-by-asset rather than by the spouse’s net share of the total community estate.


Estate of Miramontes-Najera, 118 Cal. App. 4th 750, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)