## Facts

- Mary and Edward W. Jafeman married in 1951 and separated in 1968; both worked during the marriage.
- Before marriage, Edward owned a San Mateo residence at 133 Hickory Lane in his name, subject to a mortgage; Mary separately owned a nearby residence at 132 Hickory Lane.
- During marriage, the parties commingled earnings and certain rental income in a joint account and used those funds to pay expenses, including mortgage and taxes on Edward’s residence.
- In the dissolution judgment, the trial court treated Edward’s residence as community property (dividing it equally), treated Mary’s savings account and employment pension as her separate property, and largely denied Mary attorney’s fees to resist Edward’s appeal (awarding only certain costs).
- Edward appealed the characterization of the residence, Mary’s savings account, and Mary’s pension; Mary appealed the denial of additional appellate attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse’s premarital residence becomes entirely community property when community funds are used during marriage to pay mortgage obligations and improve the property.
2. Whether a savings account accumulated from a spouse’s earnings during marriage may be characterized as that spouse’s separate property absent an effective agreement changing its character.
3. Whether the record supported a proper classification and allocation of community and separate interests in a spouse’s employment pension.
4. Whether the denial of additional attorney’s fees for resisting the appeal required reversal or reconsideration.

## Decision

- The dissolution itself was affirmed, but the property characterization and division were reversed in part and remanded.
- The residence was not entirely community property; Edward retained a separate-property interest for premarital equity, and the community acquired only a proportional interest attributable to community principal reduction (and related equity increase).
- The savings account could not be treated as Mary’s separate property; as an accumulation from marital earnings, it was community property absent proof rebutting the community presumption.
- The pension characterization lacked an adequate evidentiary basis; the matter was remanded for findings to allocate community and separate components and to value and divide the community portion.
- Further proceedings were ordered consistent with the corrected property allocations, with attorney’s fees left to the trial court’s discretion in light of the remand.

## Legal Principles

- Property owned by a spouse before marriage remains separate property unless changed by a valid agreement; community payments do not, by themselves, convert the entire asset to community property.
- Use of community funds to reduce principal indebtedness on separately titled real property creates a community interest proportionate to the community’s contribution to equity; the premarital equity remains separate.
- Earnings during marriage are presumptively community property, and assets acquired with those earnings (including savings accounts) are likewise presumptively community absent proof of a valid change in character.
- Pension rights earned over time may include both separate and community interests; proper division requires evidence allowing allocation between premarital and marital accrual and valuation of the community share.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an equal division of a premarital residence as wholly community property and required a proportional allocation reflecting both premarital separate equity and community-funded equity increases; it reclassified a wage-funded savings account as community property and remanded for evidentiary findings to apportion pension rights and to enter a revised property division consistent with these rules.


In re Marriage of Jafeman, 29 Cal. App. 3d 244, 105 Cal. Rptr. 483 (Ct. App. 1972)