Marriage of Heikes

While Norman Heikes (plaintiff) and Rose Heikes (defendant) were married, Norman owned two parcels of property as his separate property. In 1976, Norman conveyed the two parcels to himself and Rose as joint tenants. At that time, California law treated this transfer as a gift to the community, giving both spouses an equal interest in the parcels as community property. In 1984, the California legislature enacted § 4800.2. This statute held that, upon divorce, a spouse must be reimbursed for his or her contribution of separate property to the purchase of community property, unless the spouse waived the right to reimbursement in writing. In 1986, the legislature enacted new provision stating that § 4800.2 applied retroactively, meaning that it applied regardless of when a spouse had contributed to the community property. The state's reasoned that retroactive application helped make future divorces uniform. In 1990, Norman and Rose began divorce proceedings. In those proceedings, the court held that the two parcels were community property and treated Norman's original contribution of his separate property as a gift to the community. Norman moved for a new trial, arguing that § 4800.2. should have been applied retroactively. If this section applied retroactively, it would give Norman a right to be reimbursed out of the couple's assets for his 1976 separate property contributions to the couple's community property, entitling him to a greater portion of the assets in the divorce. The trial court awarded Norman a new trial. Rose appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the new-trial order. Rose petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, arguing that applying § 4800.2. retroactively was unconstitutional because it took away her property rights in the two community parcels without due process.