## Facts

- Joyce M. Grinius (wife) and Victor Grinius (husband) married the same day they signed an antenuptial agreement listing separate assets and stating that property acquired “from whatever source” during the agreement’s term would be the acquiring spouse’s separate property.
- The agreement applied only to the first six years of marriage, after which it could be renegotiated or lapse, returning the parties to rights “provided by law.”
- During marriage, the parties opened and operated a restaurant business and obtained substantial loans (including an SBA-guaranteed bank loan and another institutional loan).
- The restaurant real property was purchased during marriage and titled solely in Victor’s name, without Joyce’s knowledge or consent.
- Loan proceeds were placed into a joint checking account used for business expenses, equipment, and the parties’ living expenses; restaurant earnings were also deposited into joint accounts.
- Loan payments were generally made from joint accounts; Victor later used some separate property to pay down or refinance remaining loan balances.
- In the dissolution proceeding, Victor stipulated the restaurant business was community property but claimed the restaurant real property was his separate property.
- The trial court characterized the restaurant real property as Victor’s separate property and denied Joyce’s request for attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether restaurant real property acquired during marriage was community property despite sole record title in the husband and a premarital agreement with a six-year time limitation.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the wife’s request for attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the characterization of the restaurant real property as the husband’s separate property.
- The Court held the evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property.
- The Court remanded with directions to treat the real property as community property and to determine any reimbursement to the husband for separate property contributions under former Cal. Civ. Code § 4800.2.
- The Court affirmed the denial of the wife’s request for attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property; the spouse asserting separate property bears the burden to rebut the presumption with substantial evidence. (Former Cal. Civ. Code § 5110.)
- Sole record title in one spouse’s name is not conclusive of separate-property character when acquisition and financing reflect community credit, community funds, or community efforts.
- A premarital agreement that expressly limits its duration may cease to govern property rights after its stated term; upon lapse, statutory marital property rules apply.
- Separate-property payments toward a community asset generally support reimbursement, not recharacterization of the asset as separate property. (Former Cal. Civ. Code § 4800.2.)
- Attorney’s fees awards in dissolution proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court held that restaurant real property acquired during marriage remained community property where acquisition and financing reflected community credit and funds, and where a time-limited premarital agreement had lapsed; any separate contributions could be addressed through reimbursement, and the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees was upheld as within its discretion.


In re Marriage of Grinius, 166 Cal. App. 3d 1179 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)