Here, effective because the oral agreement cannot overcome the

Here, Husband insisted that the house was
acquired with the title of joint tenancy, thus, it’s community property as a
matter of law. 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 Angelica!

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

Check it out