## Facts

- Before marrying, the parties entered an express oral agreement to live together, combine efforts and earnings, and share property acquired during that period equally.
- They acquired unimproved real property on Hageman Road; title was initially taken in the wife’s name as an unmarried woman after escrow instructions were changed.
- The husband contributed cash toward the purchase price and later contributed labor and funds for improvements, including some separate-fund purchases.
- The wife financed construction through a loan in her name; aside from a few payments from her separate account, loan payments were made from the parties’ joint account.
- After marriage, the wife deeded the property to the parties as joint tenants; later, before separation, title at one point was placed in the wife’s name as her sole and separate property.
- During marriage, the wife embezzled from her employer, faced civil and criminal proceedings, and was convicted; she was ordered to pay restitution and used separate property to make payments.
- Two law firms represented the wife in the civil and criminal matters; she incurred unpaid attorney-fee obligations.
- After separation, the wife executed a deed of trust on the residence to secure the unpaid attorney fees.
- In the dissolution judgment, the trial court characterized the residence as community property and assigned the embezzlement-related attorney-fee obligations solely to the wife as separate debts.

## Issues

1. Whether an express oral premarital agreement to pool efforts and own future-acquired property equally can support characterizing the residence as community property despite record title reflecting the wife’s separate property at various times.
2. Whether attorney-fee obligations incurred during marriage to defend criminal and civil matters arising from a spouse’s embezzlement are community debts or the spouse’s separate obligations in dissolution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The residence was properly characterized as community property based on the parties’ premarital oral agreement and performance, notwithstanding record title.
- The wife’s attorney-fee obligations incurred in defending embezzlement-related criminal and civil actions were properly assigned to her as separate debts; the community estate was not responsible as between the spouses.

## Legal Principles

- Unmarried partners may enter enforceable express agreements regarding earnings and property ownership, so long as the agreement is not founded on sexual services.
- A premarital oral agreement to share property acquired through pooled efforts may be enforced in dissolution, and record title does not necessarily control where the agreement and conduct show a different ownership intent.
- In dissolution, obligations arising from a spouse’s criminal or intentional wrongful conduct may be assigned to the wrongdoing spouse as separate debt when the liability was not incurred for the benefit of the community.
- Liability rules governing third-party creditor access to community property do not determine how the obligation is allocated between spouses in dissolution.

## Conclusion

The court upheld treating the parties’ home as community property because their premarital oral pooling agreement and subsequent conduct showed shared ownership intent, and it upheld assigning the wife’s embezzlement-defense attorney fees to her alone because the debts arose from personal criminal wrongdoing and were not for the community’s benefit.


In re Marriage of Stitt, 147 Cal. App. 3d 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)