tranquility
Senior Member
(note: she got the car title AFTER we were married. The title was hold by the bank while she was making the payments. The car was not owned by her prior to marriage)
I think your reading of title is incorrect. But, if true, Marriage of Lucas applies. Either way you are SOL.
Your financial calculation is obviously in error. First, per Lucas, allowing her to title property that way gives the presumption of a gift. You can rebut that, but you will have to be convincing enough to *overcome* the presumption. This will not happen in a you say-she says situation. Second, you have a three year loan obtained two years before the marriage. The car is now worth $8,000. You feel the community should be paid 75% of the current value? The estimates you used in the calculation are not correct. Please stick to the same facts in during the whole discussion.
your answer implies that there is no commingling because no other deposit beside her wages were made in her account, and therefore there is no commingling. You imply that her wages are separate earnings and not community earnings. It also implies that IF other deposits beside her wages were made in her account, the situation would be different. If the deposits in her account would come from "passive" gains (interests earned from the principal for example), there would be no commingling. Here the deposits are "active" gains (community earnings even if it looks like "her" wages). Her account becomes a community account and this is a commingling situation.
I wrote precisely and you read generally to come to improper conclusions. Re-read my posts. Wages are community property. That is why the community could be entitled to reimbursement at all. However, when wages are placed in a segregated account and payments are made from that account to separate property debts, equity is not purchased by the community. If other community monies are placed in the account, the principle of comingling comes into play. This does not mean all property that is touched by the account becomes community, it just means there is a presumption. Here, the presumption could easily be rebutted by providing a loan amortization and proof of title. Besides, you still would rather have reimbursement rather that part of the equity. The value of the car went down. You would rather have community reimbursement for the principal paid over a proportional value that had been purchased by the community.
As fairisfair writes, the 401K issue is very fact specific. The calculations are difficult and the goal is fairness. The main point will be to consider the amounts paid in before and the amounts earned on that amount (over time) and the amounts paid in (and amount earned on that portion) after marriage. You gave nothing about the stocks to base an answer on.
I think your reading of title is incorrect. But, if true, Marriage of Lucas applies. Either way you are SOL.
Your financial calculation is obviously in error. First, per Lucas, allowing her to title property that way gives the presumption of a gift. You can rebut that, but you will have to be convincing enough to *overcome* the presumption. This will not happen in a you say-she says situation. Second, you have a three year loan obtained two years before the marriage. The car is now worth $8,000. You feel the community should be paid 75% of the current value? The estimates you used in the calculation are not correct. Please stick to the same facts in during the whole discussion.
your answer implies that there is no commingling because no other deposit beside her wages were made in her account, and therefore there is no commingling. You imply that her wages are separate earnings and not community earnings. It also implies that IF other deposits beside her wages were made in her account, the situation would be different. If the deposits in her account would come from "passive" gains (interests earned from the principal for example), there would be no commingling. Here the deposits are "active" gains (community earnings even if it looks like "her" wages). Her account becomes a community account and this is a commingling situation.
I wrote precisely and you read generally to come to improper conclusions. Re-read my posts. Wages are community property. That is why the community could be entitled to reimbursement at all. However, when wages are placed in a segregated account and payments are made from that account to separate property debts, equity is not purchased by the community. If other community monies are placed in the account, the principle of comingling comes into play. This does not mean all property that is touched by the account becomes community, it just means there is a presumption. Here, the presumption could easily be rebutted by providing a loan amortization and proof of title. Besides, you still would rather have reimbursement rather that part of the equity. The value of the car went down. You would rather have community reimbursement for the principal paid over a proportional value that had been purchased by the community.
As fairisfair writes, the 401K issue is very fact specific. The calculations are difficult and the goal is fairness. The main point will be to consider the amounts paid in before and the amounts earned on that amount (over time) and the amounts paid in (and amount earned on that portion) after marriage. You gave nothing about the stocks to base an answer on.
Last edited:
