Marriage of Benson
California Supreme Court
116 P.3d 1152 (2005)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Douglas Benson (defendant) and Diane Benson (plaintiff) were married. Diane filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Douglas worked full-time and had a 401(k) retirement account through his employer. Diane’s father initially owned the house in which the couple lived. Diane’s father deeded the couple a 100 percent ownership interest in the house. Diane’s father later requested that the house be deeded to Diane’s irrevocable trust, of which her father was the trustee. According to Douglas, he agreed to transfer ownership of the house to the trust, but only upon a verbal commitment from Diane that she would give up any interest in Douglas’s retirement accounts. The agreement was never reduced to writing, and at trial Diane denied making the agreement. Douglas separately settled his claim regarding his interest in the house. Diane argued that the claimed transmutation of Douglas’s retirement accounts was invalid due to section 852(a) of the California Family Code. Section 852(a) provided that a transmutation of community property must be made expressly in writing. The trial court found that Douglas deeding the house to the trust was part performance of the oral transmutation agreement, rendering the agreement enforceable against Diane. The court of appeal affirmed. Diane appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baxter, J.)
Concurrence (Moreno, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
