How Separate Property Can Be Turned Into Community Property
Posted on : August 4, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
How Separate Property Can Be Turned Into Community Property
In Blaine v. Blaine 159 P.2d 786 (Ariz. 1945), the Arizona Supreme Court evaluated a divorcing couple’s property division.
Facts of the Case
The Blaines married in 1935. When they married, Husband owned a personal service business, a home, and some rental property. He also owned stocks, bonds, accounts receivable, and car and life insurance policies with cash surrender values. At the time of the marriage, Husband’s assets, not including the real estate, was worth about $17,600.
The couple had two daughters who were 3 years old and 4 months old when wife filed for divorce. The family court granted her a divorce in 1942.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court evaluated the couple’s income. It also reviewed how husband managed that income. Before the marriage, husband had a commercial account with Valley National Bank. After the marriage, he deposited all of his business income in that account.
Husband also deposited all money from his separate properties in the same account. All community and separate money were commingled in the same account.
Accidentally Commingling Funds Loses You Money.
During the marriage, Husband bought property with the money in the commingled bank account. The property held by the couple at the time of divorce included:
• increase in cash value life insurance policies $1,110;
• additions to household goods, $1,890.18;
• additions to office equipment $404.39;
• 32 shares of Valley National Bank stock $312.
These totaled $16,308.96. Of this, $786.91 of the cash was the separate property of Husband.
The trial court ruled that the increase in insurance cash value and the office furniture were Husband’s separate property. The remainder it ruled was community property. It also resolved custody, visitation, maintenance, and attorney fees and costs issues.
Both husband and wife appealed from the judgment.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Wife argued on appeal that Husband was not a fit parent. She argued that he should not have any custody time at all with his daughters. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to second-guess the family court on custody issues. It said that the wife could raise the matter at any time before the family law court to modify custody.
B. Alimony and Child Support
The family court awarded Wife $125 a month for maintenance for herself and the two girls. She claimed this was unreasonable.
The Supreme Court agreed since Husband paid $150 in monthly support during the divorce. The Court increased alimony and child support to $175 a month.
C. Court Costs and Attorney Fees
The family court awarded Wife $250 for court costs. Wife argued that this was inadequate and unreasonable. The Supreme Court found that Wife paid over $500 in auditor’s fees to uncover considerable community property. It found the $250 award wholly insufficient and ordered an award of $600.
The trial court also awarded Wife $250 for attorney fees. The evidence showed that her attorneys spent three weeks preparing the case and five days at trial. The reasonable value of these services was $1,250.
The Supreme Court said that trial courts must award attorneys fair and reasonable compensation for their services. Given the efforts of counsel, in this case, the Court awarded Mrs. Blaine $1,000 in attorney fees.
D. Life Insurance Value Increase and Office Furniture
In Arizona, all property a couple acquires during the marriage, except gifts or inheritance, is considered to be community property. A spouse claiming that property purchased during marriage is his separate property must prove it by clear and convincing evidence.
Sometimes a couple commingles separate and community funds in one account and unknowingly treats it as community property. When this happens, the entire amount can become community property. The Blairs had mixed separate and community funds in their account. Therefore, the Court said, funds in the account were community property.
Likewise, everything they purchased with this money in this account was community property. That included the increase in the cash value of the life insurance policy and the office furniture.
Husband made payments for these items from the commingled account. He did not designate that the payments should be from his separate funds. For this reason, the Court ruled that the community owns the increase in the policy value and the office furniture.
E. Polk Street Property
How Commingling Property Loses You Money.
Husband bought the Polk Street property with separate funds. However, he asked the accountant to make out the deed in both his and Wife’s name. And after he bought it, he treated it as their joint property. He even paid taxes on the house from community funds.
When they thought of selling the house, the contract included both Mr. Blaine and Mrs. Blaine as owners. The husband reported the $500 paid on the purchase price as joint income. Husband never claimed that the Polk Street property as his separate property until the divorce.
In court, Mr. Blaine said that he did not intend to buy this property as community property. He said he did not intend to gift Mrs. Blaine a one-half interest in the home. No other evidence suggested that husband intended the Polk Street property to remain separate property.
The Supreme Court found that husband’s trial testimony was not sufficient, given his prior behavior. For example, Mr. Blaine had no reason to put wife’s name on the deed. The Court held that wife owned a one-half interest in the Polk Street property.
A. Accounts Receivable
First, Husband claims that his business had $4,657.91 in accounts receivable at the time he married. He said that the trial court should have taken this into account when figuring his separate property.
He argued that the court should have given him a credit in this amount of the cash. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence that husband ever collected the bills receivable. The evidence showed that when the couple married, they had no cash.
Husband presented no evidence that the clients paid these bills. Therefore, the Court said, the trial court rightly disallowed any credit against the cash balance.
B. The 32 Shares of Valley National Bank Stock
When he married, Husband owned 25 shares of Valley National Bank stock. After the marriage, he bought 13 more shares. The bank issued a stock dividend of one-half share for each outstanding share of stock and husband got 19 shares.
The Divorce Court ruled that the 13 shares husband had purchased after marriage plus the 19 dividend shares were community property. The Husband appealed this ruling.
The Supreme Court found that the 13 shares purchased after marriage were community property. However, not all of the 19 dividend shares were community property. Only those dividend shares attributable to the 13 community property shares—6.5 of the dividend shares—were community property.
C. Household Goods
The trial court gave Wife the household goods and furniture as her separate property. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed. It said that the divorce court was justified as treating them as gifts to the wife.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision. It remanded the case to the trial court to reform the judgment as specified in this opinion. The Arizona Court of Appeals distinguished the decision in this case in the appeal in the In re Marriage of Fong case.