Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
W is a native of Turkey. W moved with her family to Los Angeles, where, in 1971, she met H, a native of Iran. They married in August 1972. They moved to Iran in 1977. The parties had two children. They separated in 1996. W later returned to California and filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage on August 28, 1997. H's father, Hashem, was a claimant in the proceedings. The characterization of four parcels of California real estate was at issue. All of the properties were gifted to H or purchased by Hashem with title placed in H's name. The parties agreed that these properties were presumed to be community assets under section 760 because they were acquired during the marriage. The trial court found that the California properties were H's separate property. There was no documentary evidence supporting W's claims that the funds used to purchase these properties came from H. It was W's contention that the community property presumption of section 760 can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court concluded that a party seeking to overcome the presumption established by section 760 must establish the separate nature of the property by a preponderance of the evidence. W appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co