Dimmick v. Dimmick

Citations

• 95 Cal. 323
• 30 P. 547
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 822

Syllabus

<p>Husband and Wife — Community Property — Purchase after Marriage — Presumption — Burden of Proof. —Real estate acquired by purchase during coverture is presumed to be community property, no matter whether the deed be taken in the name of the husband or wife, or both. While this presumption is not conclusive, the burden of proof rests upon the party affirming the fact to be to the contrary, and such fact must be established by clear and convincing evidence.</p> <p>Id. — Separate Property —Necessity of Identification — Commingling of Funds. — In order that property may maintain its status as separate property, it is not necessary that it should be preserved in specie or in kind; yet when it has undergone mutations and assumed other conditions, it is absolutely necessary, in order to maintain its character as separate property, that it be clearly traced and located; and where money belonging to the wife has been so commingled with the funds of her husband, who is an active business man engaged in numerous speculations, so that it is impossible to say that any part of it passed into a particular tract of land purchased by the husband, such tract is community property.</p> <p>Id.—Delivery oe Deed — Intent — Recording — Death oe Grantee— Sufficiency of Delivery. — Where a deed of realty was delivered to the grantee, with the intention of vesting the title thereto in the grantee, the fact that the grantor requested the grantee to refrain from recording the instrument until after the grantor’s death is entirely im. material; and the grantor’s belief, that if the grantee died before the grantor that he could conceal or destroy the deed and thereby reinvest the title in himself, does not militate against the sufficiency of the delivery at the date of the conveyance, or destroy his clear intention to part with the title and vest the same in the grantee.</p>