Brace v. Speier, No. 17-60032 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Chapter 7 debtor and his wife (collectively, "appellants") appealed the bankruptcy appellate panel's order affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment in an adversary proceeding brought by the Chapter 7 trustee. At issue is the characterization of two properties acquired by appellants during their marriage but before debtor individually filed for bankruptcy protection.
The panel certified to the Supreme Court of California the question whether, in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, Cal. Evid. Code 662, which affords a presumption based on the property's form of title, supersedes Cal. Fam. Code 760, which applies a presumption in favor of community property for property purchased during the marriage with community property. The California Supreme Court determined that for joint tenancy property acquired during marriage before 1975, each spouse's interest is presumptively separate in character. For such property acquired with community funds on or after January 1, 1975, the property is presumptively community in character. For property acquired before 1985, the parties can show a transmutation from community property to separate property by oral or written agreement or a common understanding. For joint tenancy property acquired with community funds on or after January 1, 1985, a written declaration is required.
In light of the Supreme Court of California's opinion answering the panel's certified question, the panel held that the bankruptcy courts properly applied California law to the characterization of the Redlands Property. In this case, the community property presumption applied because the property was acquired with community funds on or after January 1, 1975. However, the panel held that the bankruptcy courts did not make the necessary factual finding regarding when the San Bernardino Property was purchased to apply the proper presumptions when characterizing that property. Finally, the panel saw no clear error in the bankruptcy courts' finding that appellants failed to meet the requirements for a transmutation of either property. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
Court Description: Bankruptcy. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment against a Chapter 7 debtor and his non-debtor spouse in an adversary proceeding brought by the Chapter 7 trustee concerning the characterization of two properties acquired by the couple during their marriage. The panel held that if a debtor holds property in joint tenancy, only his one-half joint interest becomes part of the bankruptcy estate, and the Chapter 7 trustee may sell the jointly held property and apportion the proceeds. If property is community property, it becomes part of the bankruptcy estate in its entirety, and the trustee may sell the property and distribute all proceeds to the debtor’s creditors, rather than apportioning some of the proceeds to the non-debtor spouse. * The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. IN RE BRACE 3 The panel had certified to the Supreme Court of California the question whether, in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, Cal. Evid. Code § 662, which affords a presumption based on the property’s form of title, supersedes Cal. Fam. Code § 760, which applies a presumption in favor of community property for property purchased during the marriage with community property. The California Supreme Court determined that for joint tenancy property acquired during marriage before 1975, each spouse’s interest is presumptively separate in character. For such property acquired with community funds on or after January 1, 1975, the property is presumptively community in character. The panel therefore limited the holding of In re Summers, 332 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2003), that a married couple’s acquisition of property in joint tenancy destroys the statutory presumption that the property is community property, to properties acquired before 1975. The California Supreme Court also determined that, for property acquired before 1985, the parties can show a transmutation from community property to separate property by oral or written agreement or a common understanding. For joint tenancy property acquired with community funds on or after January 1, 1985, a written declaration is required. Affirming in part, the panel held that for the first property, the community property presumption applied because the property was acquired with community funds on or after January 1, 1975. The record was unclear regarding when appellants acquired the second property. The panel therefore vacated the bankruptcy court’s determination that the community property presumption applied to the second property and remanded for further proceedings. The panel found no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s factual finding that no oral transmutation of the properties took place in the 1970s. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the bankruptcy 4 IN RE BRACE courts’ conclusion that appellants did not meet the requirements for a transmutation of either property.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 8, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.