## Facts

- Wife filed for divorce alleging extreme and habitual cruelty and claimed the marital residence was community property though record title was in joint tenancy.
- Husband answered that the parties intended to hold the residence as joint tenants.
- The parties bought a residence in Sherman Oaks, California after moving from the East; husband borrowed $3,000 from his father toward the purchase price, which remained unpaid.
- The deed placed title in both spouses as joint tenants.
- Wife testified she did not understand joint tenancy, no one explained it to her, and she believed the home “belonged to both” as community property.
- Wife conceded there had been no discussion between the spouses about how title should be taken or their intended form of ownership.
- The trial court found the property was “in truth and in fact” community property despite joint-tenancy record title and awarded it to the wife in the interlocutory divorce decree.
- Husband appealed the property characterization and award.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse’s subjective, uncommunicated belief that jointly titled property was “community” can rebut the presumption arising from a joint-tenancy deed for property acquired during marriage.
2. Whether a divorce court may dispose of spouses’ jointly held property as community property absent sufficient proof that it is, in fact, community property rather than joint tenancy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the decree characterizing the residence as community property and awarding it to the wife.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption that the property was held in joint tenancy.
- The court concluded that, without a proper basis to recharacterize the asset as community, the divorce court lacked authority in the action to dispose of the property as though it were community property.
- The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with reversal limited to the real property characterization and disposition.

## Legal Principles

- Record title taken by spouses as joint tenants creates a strong presumption that the property is held in joint tenancy.
- A unilateral, undisclosed intention or misunderstanding by one spouse does not rebut the presumption created by a joint-tenancy deed; rebuttal requires evidence of a mutual understanding or agreement inconsistent with the deed.
- Payment of purchase price or carrying costs from community earnings does not, by itself, overcome the legal effect of an express joint-tenancy form of title when there is no clear proof of contrary mutual intent.
- A divorce court’s power to divide and award property depends on proper classification as community property; absent proof that joint-tenancy property is actually community, the court may not dispose of it as community in the divorce decree.

## Conclusion

The court held that the joint-tenancy deed controlled because the wife’s uncommunicated belief and lack of understanding did not establish a mutual agreement to treat the home as community property, and the trial court therefore erred in awarding the jointly titled property to the wife as community property in the divorce decree.


Schindler v. Schindler, 126 Cal. App. 2d 597, 272 P.2d 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)