CA Divorce: Gift Money From Parents Put Towards A House

[tantan17]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Hi All,

Was hoping to get some advice re my current situation.

Me and my partner are unfortunately going through a divorce. One item of contention is gift money that my spouse's parents contributed to the down payment to the house we currently own, and plan to sell.

My understanding of the legal requirement is that any income generated from the sale of the house would be split equally between us. My spouse is arguing that I am legally obligated to refund her parents the full amount they gifted since they gifted it to her and not us, as a couple.

Would appreciate any insight into the legal standard here.

Thank you.

 

[justalayman]

Why not return the gift to the parents? Obviously not a legal requirement but sure is the moral thing to do.

Neither party is obligated to return anything to the parents. It was a gift.

 

[Silverplum]

Don't take legal advice from your ex. Her logic and math skills are shaky, too.

 

[tantan17]

Why not return the gift to the parents? Obviously not a legal requirement but sure is the moral thing to do.

Neither party is obligated to return anything to the parents. It was a gift.

Good and fair question: I am willing to return it but she is also asking for other items that are beyond the legal requirement but also is holding the legal requirement over my head (claiming that since it as a gift to her, I am legally obligated to return it to her "parents") for things that are in her interest. So for items that would fall in her interest she wants to do thing the "moral way" and for other items she is asking for the legal standard. So the question I ask is in the context of me trying to figure out my legal standing to see whether I should just go the legal way or the moral way...as it cannot be legal way for things that are in her favor and moral way for things that are in her favor, to my detriment. I am trying to do the right thing

 

[justalayman]

The way I see it, since neither of you are required to return the money to the parents (because it was a gift and you don't have to return gifts) the moral thing to do is return it to the parents. They were nice enough to give it. It would be nice since the relationship they were aiding is ending that they get the money back


another question; was the money a gift specifically to your spouse or was it to the both of you?

 

[tantan17]

The way I see it, since neither of you are required to return the money to the parents (because it was a gift and you don't have to return gifts) the moral thing to do is return it to the parents. They were nice enough to give it. It would be nice since the relationship they were aiding is ending that they get the money back


another question; was the money a gift specifically to your spouse or was it to the both of you?

The gift was made to her specifically.

 

[justalayman]

Since the gift was seperate property and it was used for the down payment, as I understand California law, the down payment remains seperate property. That means your spouse gets it all. S/he can do whatever they want with it.

 

[tantan17]

Since the gift was seperate property and it was used for the down payment, as I understand California law, the down payment remains seperate property. That means your spouse gets it all. S/he can do whatever they want with it.

Got it. Thank you

 

[Zigner]

Since the gift was seperate property and it was used for the down payment, as I understand California law, the down payment remains seperate property. That means your spouse gets it all. S/he can do whatever they want with it.

Once she co-mingled it with marital (community) property, it became much murkier.

 

[LdiJ]

Once she co-mingled it with marital (community) property, it became much murkier.

I agree, but we have been told that if its traceable, it is still separate property.

 

[justalayman]

Once she co-mingled it with marital (community) property, it became much murkier.

Actually cal.gov has a web page on it and they specifically addressed that point and very clearly stated it remisnder seperate. They went on to say if it was used to make mortgage payments, then it's messy.

 

[Zigner]

Actually cal.gov has a web page on it and they specifically addressed that point and very clearly stated it remisnder seperate. They went on to say if it was used to make mortgage payments, then it's messy.

Fair enough (That's for you and LdiJ)

 

[justalayman]

I thought I added this to my post but I don't see it. Maybe it's floating somewhere on another thread.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/1039.htm#Mixed

 

[Bali Hai]

Good and fair question: I am willing to return it but she is also asking for other items that are beyond the legal requirement but also is holding the legal requirement over my head (claiming that since it as a gift to her, I am legally obligated to return it to her "parents") for things that are in her interest. So for items that would fall in her interest she wants to do thing the "moral way" and for other items she is asking for the legal standard. So the question I ask is in the context of me trying to figure out my legal standing to see whether I should just go the legal way or the moral way...as it cannot be legal way for things that are in her favor and moral way for things that are in her favor, to my detriment. I am trying to do the right thing

This should not surprise you. Do you believe she would give back a gift to your parents?

 

[latigo]

The gift was made to her specifically.

Why are you now saying that the money was "specifically" given to your wife? In your first post you only mention that her parents made a contribution to the purchase by way of gift.

So how was the money transferred from the parents? In what form was it transferred and to whom or where? Is there any writing wherein the intention of the parents to gift it to their daughter is expressed? What evidence is there to refute that it was given not to her alone, but to both of you?

The laws distinguishing separate from marital or community property as well as those relating to gifts of personal property are very clear. Just don't rush to some unsupportable conclusion that merely because money invested in the home came from her parents that the investment is her sole and separate property.

On the other hand don't be misled to believe - as someone has mistakenly proposed - that if the investment in the family home was her sole and separate property that because community property has also been invested and that the home is titled in both names that some sort of "commingling" occurred such as to transmute or convert the investment into community property.

The commingling or the blending of separate and marital property becomes significant in this context only when the identity of one cannot be reasonably traced and distinguished from the other.