Hi. I apologize for your difficult circumstance, and thank you for choosing Justanswer for your legal question(s). My role as expert is to provide you with utmost service through providing legal information that is honest and truthful (and not overly rosy in nature). Notably, I do not provide advice.In California, there's an inherit presumption that money acquired during marriage, monies commingled into bank accounts from money acquired during marriage, and shares earned during marriage, will be split 50/50 at divorce. It might not be possible to append one's name to a bank account or to shares of one's spouse, but it is implied to be split at divorce either way. Do you have any follow up questions? I welcome any and all - as I am here to serve you.
Most of the shares and money were inherited from his parents. The money is in an account with his name on it. I'm guessing he could put my name on the account, but I'm wondering whether a CA would recognize it as community property since the money was inherited? The shares are shares in two corporations, the larger portion of which is in his name. Would a CA court recognize that as community property? Both the money and the shares were inherited after we had been married for several years.
If inherited, it is separate property.
Hence, shares and money inherited are not divisible.
If the bank account contains both inherited and community property money, it is "commingled" making it all divisible.
If he puts name on it, does it then become community property? Or is there another way to change the status of the property?
If one's name is XXXXX XXXXX could be enough. Certainly, that coupled with a transmutation agreement (i.e. a signed agreement that the property is changing character from separate to community), would change the character of the property.
Sorry, I didn't see that I could scroll down. You answered my question about the money. Thank you. What about the shares?
OK, great. I think this will help us work through the problem.
No problem. It's possible if the shares are commingled, the same reasoning could be applied. If not, the amount inherited would not be distributable, while the rest would be.
Do you have any further questions? I welcome any and all - as I am here to serve you.
No, this is just what I needed. Thanks again. I re
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).