In re Marriage of Valli Petition for Review

•
In spite ofone spouse's being named as owner for a totally unrelated
purpose orfor no particular reason at all, the Opinion held that whichever spouse
happens to be so named is also the policy's absolute owner for all purposes,
including characterization upon divorce. That will be an unpleasant surprise to
•
halfofthe California spouses who believe that such policies are community
property and represents a dramatic 180-degree departure from a hundred years of
California law.
II.
THE OPINION ERODES THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY PRESUMPTION
"When life insurance premiums are paid with community property funds, the
resulting policy is an asset ofthe community. [Citations.]" (Life Ins. Co. ofNorth
America v. Cassidy, supra, 35 Ca1.3d 599, 605.) Community property is defined as
"all property" which is acquired by "a married person" during marriage, "[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by statute." (Fam. Code §760.) The definition includes
property acquired during marriage by one spouse acting alone and in one spouse's
sole name, unless another statute characterizes it as separate property.
In dissolution actions, the party claiming that the property is separate always
bears the burden ofproofto overcome the community property presumption and
establish by a preponderance ofevidence that an asset acquired during marriage is
13