## Facts

- Sheryl Jones Davis (wife) and Keith Xavier Davis (husband) married in 1993 and had two children.
- By the early 2000s, the marital relationship deteriorated; sexual intimacy ceased by 1999, and the parties stopped functioning as a couple in many respects.
- The parties disputed when they stopped sharing a bedroom (husband: 2001; wife: 2004), but both described increasing day-to-day separation (e.g., separate laundry, some separate vacations, separate transportation for children’s activities).
- Despite the breakdown in the relationship, both spouses continued to reside in the marital home for the children.
- On December 30, 2008, wife filed for dissolution and alleged a date of separation of June 1, 2006, even though she still lived in the marital home then.
- Husband contested, arguing separation occurred only when wife later moved out shortly after the petition was filed.
- The trial court found June 1, 2006 to be the separation date, reasoning the spouses were “living entirely separate lives” while co-residing.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding physical separation was not required to be “living separate and apart” under Family Code § 771(a).

## Issues

1. Whether spouses can be “living separate and apart” under Family Code § 771(a) while continuing to reside in the same dwelling.
2. Whether post-“separation” earnings and accumulations are separate property under § 771(a) absent separate residences.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held that “living separate and apart” under Family Code § 771(a) requires spouses to live in separate residences.
- Because the spouses continued to live in the same home until one moved out, earnings and accumulations during co-residence remained community property.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s interpretation of § 771(a).

## Legal Principles

- Community property is the default for property acquired during marriage unless a statute provides otherwise. (Fam. Code § 760.)
- Under Family Code § 771(a), a spouse’s earnings and accumulations are separate property only while the spouses are “living separate and apart.”
- For § 771(a), living in separate residences is a necessary condition; changed marital conduct or subjective intent, without separate residences, does not satisfy “living separate and apart.”
- A residence-based rule provides a clear, administrable standard and avoids fact-intensive disputes over internal marital behavior while cohabiting.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court construed Family Code § 771(a) to require separate residences before spouses are “living separate and apart,” so earnings and accumulations remain community property while the spouses continue to share the same home.


In re Marriage of Davis, 61 Cal. 4th 846 (Cal. 2015)