## Facts

- Frances Lee Stewart and Ernest A. Stewart married in 1907 and acquired property during marriage using community funds.
- The disputed asset was real property acquired in 1918, after the 1917 amendments to California Civil Code § 172 and the enactment of § 172a.
- Title to the property was taken in Frances’s name by deed.
- Frances sued for a declaration that, upon acquisition, she owned a present, undivided one-half vested interest in the property as community property.
- Ernest contested, asserting that under California law the husband retained management and control during marriage and the wife held only a nonvested interest.
- The trial court ruled for Frances and declared her present vested one-half interest.
- Ernest appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1917 amendments to Civil Code § 172 and the addition of § 172a granted a wife a present, vested, undivided one-half interest in community property upon acquisition.
2. Whether the vested or nonvested character of spouses’ interests in community property is determined by the law in force at the time the property is acquired.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed and remanded.
- The 1917 statutory changes did not create a present vested one-half ownership in the wife upon acquisition of community property.
- During marriage, the wife’s community-property interest remained nonvested, though more definite than the interest of an ordinary heir.
- The vested or nonvested character of spouses’ community-property interests is determined by the law in effect at the date of acquisition.
- The trial court erred by declaring Frances the holder of a present vested one-half estate.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory limits on the husband’s power to convey or encumber community real property, without clear language granting co-ownership, do not convert the wife’s community interest into a present vested estate.
- The 1917 amendments to § 172 and the enactment of § 172a were construed as adding safeguards against improper disposition of community property, not as reallocating present ownership between spouses during marriage.
- Treatment of unilateral conveyances under § 172a as voidable (including protections for good-faith purchasers) supports the conclusion that the wife did not hold an equal present vested title that would render such transfers wholly ineffective as to her share.
- Whether spouses’ community-property interests are vested is governed by the community-property law in effect when the property is acquired.

## Conclusion

The court held that the 1917 community-property amendments strengthened protections for wives against unilateral disposition of community real property but did not grant a wife a present vested one-half ownership during marriage; the character of the spouses’ interests is fixed by the law at the time of acquisition, requiring reversal of the declaratory judgment recognizing a vested half-interest.


Stewart v. Stewart, 249 P. 197 (Cal. 1926)