California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Burch v. George, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 7 Cal.4th 246, 866 P.2d 92 (Cal. 1994):
[7 Cal.4th 287] The majority's hypothetical discloses nothing so much as the majority's dissatisfaction with the community property laws of this state. Under Family Code section 760, "all [personal] property ... acquired by a married person during the marriage ... is community property." Thus, under the majority's hypothetical, the husband is a co-owner of the business with the wife, whether the wife, or the majority, care for that fact or not. (See Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 715, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 854 P.2d 1117.) There is nothing inequitable about a rule that precludes one spouse from unilaterally disposing of property belonging in part to the other spouse. To the contrary, equitable considerations mandate that the interests of the nonconsenting spouse be protected.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.