Here, times told that the house is one

Here, Husband insisted that the house
was purchased with the title of joint tenancy, thus, it’s community property. The
wife asserted that the reason of buying with the title of joint tenancy was
advised by realtor because of tax. When she bought the house, husband agreed
with oral that the house was hers. Husband testified that he didn’t tell the
house is her house and there was no evidence. However, their children testified
that he several times told that the house is one of the wife. Husband rebut
that according to the Civil Code, his oral agreement would
not be effective because the oral agreement cannot overcome the presumption
that property acquired during marriage
in joint tenancy is community property. Thus, the purchasing money was only
separate money, but increasing money after purchasing would be community
property. The Court found that the issue is whether the law of the Civil Code section is able to apply
this case with retroactive. The Court held that even though the intention of the Civil Code is applying with
retroactive, the law would be unconstitutional because retroactive application
of this law deprives the wife of her vested property right. If the house became
community property according to the Civil
Code, it would violate the due process of law.

 

Here, Husband insisted that the house
was purchased with the title of joint tenancy, thus, it’s community property. The
wife asserted that the reason of buying with the title of joint tenancy was
advised by realtor because of tax. When she bought the house, husband agreed
with oral that the house was hers. Husband testified that he didn’t tell the
house is her house and there was no evidence. However, their children testified
that he several times told that the house is one of the wife. Husband rebut
that according to the Civil Code, his oral agreement would
not be effective because the oral agreement cannot overcome the presumption
that property acquired during marriage
in joint tenancy is community property. Thus, the purchasing money was only
separate money, but increasing money after purchasing would be community
property. The Court found that the issue is whether the law of the Civil Code section is able to apply
this case with retroactive. The Court held that even though the intention of the Civil Code is applying with
retroactive, the law would be unconstitutional because retroactive application
of this law deprives the wife of her vested property right. If the house became
community property according to the Civil
Code, it would violate the due process of law.

 

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out