Marriage of Mix Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Marriage of Mix Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Marriage of Mix | 536 P.2d 479 (1975) In a community property state, it’s presumed that property acquired during the marriage is community property. But can that presumption be defeated? The court considered that question in In re the Marriage of Mix. When Richard and Esther Mix got married, Esther was already practicing law. Richard was a professional musician. Esther separately owned several income producing real estate and bank accounts, including an account with Wells Fargo Bank. When they married, Richard’s checking account became their joint checking account. Both deposited their salaries into this account, and Esther deposited her rental income into this account, too. The year before they married, Esther had bought a residence on Balboa Circle, which became their marital residence. The Mixes subsequently made mortgage payments, tax payments, and capital improvements on the house from the commingled accounts. After Esther later filed for divorce, she sold the home and deposited the proceeds in a separate account. Esther also bought a life insurance policy as part of obtaining the mortgage on the Balboa Circle home. During the marriage, premium payments came from the commingled account. Before and during the marriage, Esther purchased several pieces of real property. She and other investors paid out money and took out loans to build residential and commercial buildings. On mortgages taken out after the marriage, Richard was listed as a borrower. Purchase money, loan payments, and other expenses sometimes came from the commingled account and sometimes from Esther’s separate funds. After ten years, Esther filed for divorce. At trial, Esther introduced an accountant’s financial schedule, listing the sources and amounts of Esther’s separate funds, the dates and costs of Esther’s property purchases during the marriage, and the amounts of Esther’s separate funds remaining after each purchase. Esther testified, providing additional information. She argued that the schedule and her testimony established that her separate property purchases substantially matched her separate income. The trial court agreed and awarded Esther, as her separate property, the proceeds of the Balboa Circle residence sale, the insurance policy, and her interest in the other realty. Richard appealed to the California Supreme Court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/marriag... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/marriag... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries