## Facts

- Esther Mix (wife), an attorney, entered the marriage owning substantial separate property, including income-producing real estate, a residence, a life insurance policy, and bank accounts.
- Richard Mix (husband) was a musician and part-time teacher with lower earnings.
- The parties married in 1958, separated in 1968, and had one minor child.
- During the early years of marriage, both spouses’ earnings and Esther’s separate-property income were deposited into a joint checking account, commingling community and separate funds.
- In 1963, Esther opened an account in her name alone and deposited most of her income from her law practice and investments into that account.
- In the dissolution action, the trial court identified specific assets as community property and divided them to achieve a substantially equal distribution.
- For property not expressly found to be community, the trial court found that property standing in Esther’s name or in her possession at separation was her separate property.
- Esther supported her separate-property claim with an accountant-prepared financial schedule reconstructing sources and uses of funds, together with her testimony that the schedule accurately traced acquisitions to her separate funds.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by characterizing disputed assets acquired during marriage as Esther’s separate property despite commingling and the presumption that marital acquisitions are community property.
2. Whether Esther’s evidence (an accountant’s tracing schedule and her testimony) was sufficiently specific and reliable to rebut the community-property presumption through direct tracing.
3. Whether an alleged spousal agreement independently established the assets’ separate character.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the interlocutory judgment’s property characterization and division.
- The Court held that Esther adequately traced the disputed property to her separate funds, overcoming the community-property presumption.
- The Court declined to decide whether an agreement between the spouses separately established the property’s character because tracing alone supported the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is presumptively community property, but the presumption may be rebutted by proof that the consideration came from separate funds.
- Commingling of separate and community funds does not, by itself, preclude proof that particular acquisitions were made with separate property.
- Under direct tracing, the spouse claiming separate character must show the availability of separate funds and that separate funds were actually used for the challenged acquisitions.
- Direct tracing does not require exhaustive documentation for every transaction if the evidence, including credible reconstruction and testimony, permits the trier of fact to infer separate funds were used.
- Appellate review defers to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a separate-property characterization where the spouse presented credible direct tracing—through an accountant’s schedule and supporting testimony—sufficient to show that disputed acquisitions were funded by separate property notwithstanding commingled accounts, making it unnecessary to rely on any agreement theory.


In re Marriage of Mix, 14 Cal. 3d 604, 536 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1975)