## Facts

- Semrin Ettefagh (wife) and Vahid Ettefagh (husband) married in 1972 and separated in 1996.
- Semrin filed for dissolution in California in 1997.
- Vahid’s father, Hashem Ettefagh, was joined because he claimed interests in several California real properties whose characterization was disputed.
- Four California parcels were acquired during the marriage; one was deeded to “Vahid Ettefagh, an unmarried man” despite the existing marriage.
- The parties agreed that Family Code § 760 presumptively characterized the properties as community because they were acquired during marriage.
- Hashem testified he provided the purchase funds and intended the properties as gifts to Vahid.
- Vahid testified he used no earnings or community funds to acquire the properties.
- The trial court found the four parcels were Vahid’s separate property by gift and applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to rebut § 760’s presumption.
- Semrin appealed, arguing the presumption could be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence and disputing whether oral testimony could suffice to prove a gift.

## Issues

1. What standard of proof applies to rebut the Family Code § 760 presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property: clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of the evidence?
2. Whether credible oral testimony, without documentary corroboration, can be sufficient evidence that property acquired during marriage was a gift to one spouse and therefore separate property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held that the § 760 community-property presumption is rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence, absent a statute requiring a higher standard.
- The court held that credible oral testimony can be sufficient to prove a gift to one spouse and thus establish separate-property character.
- Applying substantial-evidence review, the court upheld the trial court’s findings crediting Hashem’s and Vahid’s testimony that Hashem supplied the funds and intended a gift.

## Legal Principles

- In civil cases, the default burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence unless a statute or constitutional concern requires a heightened standard.
- Family Code § 760 shifts the burden of proof to the spouse claiming separate property but does not specify a heightened quantum of proof; therefore, preponderance applies.
- Because marital property characterization disputes involve economic interests shared between spouses, they do not, by themselves, justify imposing a clear-and-convincing standard.
- A gift theory may rebut the community-property presumption, and no categorical rule requires documentary corroboration if credible testimony establishes donative intent and nonuse of community funds.
- On appeal, witness credibility determinations and factfinding are left to the trial court when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that a spouse may rebut the Family Code § 760 community-property presumption by a preponderance of the evidence and that credible oral testimony can be sufficient to prove a gift creating separate property, with appellate courts deferring to trial-court credibility findings when supported by substantial evidence.


In re Marriage of Ettefagh, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2007)