## Facts

- Raymond Theodore Raphael died intestate in 1946, survived by his widow, Bertha Rado Raphael, and his brother, Harry Raphael.
- Most assets in Raymond’s estate derived from property he inherited during the marriage, plus its earnings and accretions.
- The administrator (Harry) petitioned for partial distribution alleging all estate property was Raymond’s separate property and should be distributed equally to Bertha and Harry.
- Bertha objected and sought an order determining that the estate included community property and that she was entitled to all community property and a one-half interest in any separate property.
- Evidence showed Raymond and Bertha consistently treated property as community during the marriage, including income-tax reporting that reflected community-property treatment of marital earnings.
- The probate court found that Raymond and Bertha had an oral agreement to convert all property owned or acquired by either spouse into community property, and that the agreement was fully carried out.
- The probate court entered judgment decreeing that all real and personal property in the estate at death was community property of Raymond and Bertha.
- Harry appealed in his individual capacity as an heir; the appeal in his capacity as administrator was dismissed by stipulation.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the probate court’s finding that all property in the decedent’s estate was community property rather than the decedent’s separate property.
2. Whether, under then-existing California law, an oral, fully executed spousal agreement could transmute separate (including inherited) property into community property, and whether such an agreement was sufficiently proven.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment decreeing that all estate property at the decedent’s death was community property.
- The court held that spouses could change the character of property by agreement, and such an agreement need not be in writing when shown to have been fully executed.
- The court concluded that the record contained substantial evidence— including testimony and the spouses’ conduct—supporting the trial court’s finding that an oral transmutation agreement existed and had been performed.
- The court declined to reweigh conflicts in the evidence, applying deferential review to the probate court’s fact findings.

## Legal Principles

- Spouses may, by agreement, alter the character of marital property, including converting separate property to community property, so long as the agreement is not barred by statute or public policy.
- An oral agreement between spouses to transmute property may be enforceable when it is fully executed and carried into effect by the parties.
- A transmutation agreement may be proven by circumstantial evidence and the parties’ course of conduct, including financial management and income-tax reporting consistent with community ownership.
- On appeal, a judgment supported by substantial evidence will be upheld; an appellate court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its view of disputed facts.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a probate decree that the entire intestate estate was community property because substantial evidence supported the finding that the spouses orally agreed to treat all property as community and fully performed that agreement during the marriage, making the transmutation effective against the decedent’s heir.


Estate of Raphael, 91 Cal. App. 2d 931, 206 P.2d 391 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)