Opinion ID: 1812566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Satisfaction of the Burden of Proof

Text: Relators further contend that the strict and conclusive burden of proof was satisfied. At issue is the ownership of four pieces (described as five tracts in the trial court judgment) of property located in Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. As stated by the appellate court: . . . in 1955, decedent and plaintiff moved to California where they acquired two pieces of real property as `joint tenants.' In late 1967, and early 1968, they sold the California properties, and from the money received purchased three pieces of property in and around Bastrop, Louisiana. Those properties were conveyed to `Louie Gathright, a married man whose wife is Mrs. Clara Gathright, nee Breland.' They moved back to Bastrop during 1968, and in 1969 acquired a fourth piece of property which was conveyed to `Louie Allen Gathright and Mrs. Clara Gathright, nee Breland, husband and wife.'. . .  352 So.2d at 286. Relators argue that since the funds used to purchase the property in Louisiana were obtained from the sale of the two tracts of California property held by Louie and Clara as joint tenants, they have shown conclusively that one-half of the funds used to purchase the Louisiana land was Clara's separate property. The court of appeal held that California law was not applicable since [t]he rule is well settled that the status of real property is determined by the law of the situs and common law joint tenancy rules have no application in determining ownership of real or personal property in this state. 352 So.2d at 286. The validity of this rule of law is undisputed; however, relators' contention is not that the legal status of the Louisiana property is established by California law. Relators' position is that the legal status of the California property will help to determine who owned what portion of the funds that were used to purchase the Louisiana property. If California law determined the status of the property in Louisiana, which it does not, the property would be presumed to be held in joint tenancy, a species of joint ownership foreign to our law. C.C.P. 1391 (The Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act) governs determination of the law of other states: Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. The court may inform itself of such laws in any manner as it may deem proper, and the court may call upon counsel to aid it in obtaining such information. The determination of such laws shall be made by the court, and not by the jury, and shall be reviewable. A party may also present to the trial court any admissible evidence of such laws, but, to enable a party to offer evidence of the law in another jurisdiction or to ask that judicial notice be taken thereof, reasonable notice shall be given to the adverse parties either in the pleadings or otherwise. Respondent complains that no notice was provided of relators' intention to rely on California law, nor was there argument to the trial judge of the need to apply California law. Nevertheless, two deeds conveying California property to Louie A. Gathright and Clara Gathright, husband and wife, as joint tenants were introduced into evidence, and there was argument by counsel for relators to the effect that the sale of the California property provided the source of the funds used to purchase the Louisiana property. In addition, relators briefed the question of the applicability of California law before the appellate court and again in this court. We find no prejudice from the failure of relators to notify respondent of their intention to rely on foreign law. The first two paragraphs of art. 1391, provide us with the authority to inform ourselves, on our own initiative, and take judicial notice of foreign law, even when the foreign law's applicability has not been called to the attention of the trial court. See Strout v. Burgess, 144 Me. 263, 68 A.2d 241, 12 A.L.R.2d 939 (1949); Harry L. Shernman & Sons v. Scranton Life Ins. Co., 125 F.2d 442 (3d Cir. 1942). See also Quickick, Inc. v. Quickick International, 304 So.2d 402 (1st Cir. 1974), writ denied, 305 So.2d 123 (1974), application denied, 306 So.2d 310 (1974). But see Cambre v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 331 So.2d 585 (1st Cir. 1976), writ denied, 334 So.2d 434 (1976) (where the foreign law was not cited or relied upon in brief or oral argument). Furthermore, we recognize that the reason often stated for demanding notice in those states which require that the foreign law be pleaded, see Annot., 23 A.L.R.2d 1437, 1449, is that without such notice the opponent would not be warned beforehand that the court may take judicial notice of foreign law and might not be able to prepare himself on that law. Respondent in the instant case, although not given notice of relators' intention to rely on California law on the trial level, has been given sufficient opportunity to research the relevant law since the argument was raised in brief in the appellate court. Consequently, we may refer to California law to determine the status of funds derived from the sale of the California property. A review of the applicable California law on joint tenancy shows: A joint interest is one owned by two or more persons in equal shares, by a title created by a single will or transfer, when expressly declared in the will or transfer to be a joint tenancy, or by transfer from a sole owner to himself and others, or from tenants in common to themselves, or to themselves and others, or from a husband and wife when holding title as community property or otherwise to themselves and others when expressly declared in the transfer to be a joint tenancy. . .  Cal.Civil Code, § 683. The fact that a deed was taken in joint tenancy establishes a prima facie case that the property was in fact held in joint tenancy. Cox v. Cox, 82 Cal.App.2d 867,187 P.2d 23, 25 (1st Dist. 1947). Property held in joint tenancy cannot also be held as community property because certain incidents of the former would be inconsistent with the incidents of the latter. Tomaier v. Tomaier, 23 Cal.2d 754, 146 P.2d 905 (1944). Where community funds are used to purchase property, the taking of title in the name of the spouses as joint tenants is tantamount to a binding agreement between them that the same shall not thereafter be held as community property, but instead as a joint tenancy with all the characteristics of such an estate. Siberell v. Siberell, 214 Cal. 767, 7 P.2d 1003, 1005 (1932). Property held by husband and wife as joint tenants is held by each as owner of an undivided one-half interest therein in his separate right. Barba v. Barba, 103 Cal.App.2d 395, 229 P.2d 465 (2d Dist. 1951). Where property is acquired in the joint tenancy form it is presumed that the property was owned as joint tenants, not as the separate property of one party or the other. Donlon v. Donlon, 155 Cal. App.2d 362, 318 P.2d 189 (2nd Dist. 1957). And where the separate estate of either party provides the source of the funds for property taken in joint tenancy, it is presumed that a gift was given by the party furnishing the consideration to the other party. Donovan v. Donovan, 223 Cal. App.2d 691, 36 Cal.Rptr. 225 (2d Dist. 1964); Benam v. Benam, 178 Cal.App.2d 837, 3 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1st Dist. 1960). The presumption arising from the form of a deed as a joint tenancy is rebuttable; however it may not be rebutted solely by evidence as to the source of the funds used to purchase the property. Gudelj v. Gudelj, 41 Cal.2d 202, 259 P.2d 656 (1953). It may only be rebutted by evidence tending to prove a common understanding or agreement between the parties that the character of the property was to be other than joint tenancy. Machado v. Machado, 58 Cal.2d 501, 375 P.2d 55, 58 (1962); Gudelj v. Gudelj, supra; Socol v. King, 36 Cal.2d 342, 223 P.2d 627 (1950). The proceeds of property held in joint tenancy, in the absence of a contrary agreement, retain the character of the property from which they were acquired. Fish v. Security-First Nat. Bank, 31 Cal.2d 378, 189 P.2d 10 (1948); Goldberg v. Goldberg, 217 Cal.App.2d 623, 32 Cal.Rptr. 93 (2d Dist. 1963); In re Zaring's Estate, 93 Cal.App.2d 577, 209 P.2d 642 (2d Dist. 1949). The record discloses that while Clara and Louie lived in Bastrop, Louisiana she worked as a nurse. Prior to their move to California in 1955, their family home was sold, the $6000 proceeds of which were divided equally between Clara and Louie. While in California Clara worked at a hospital. Louie testified that they kept their finances separate, that he deposited his money in a bank and savings and loan in his own name, and that he did not know what Clara did with her money. He also testified that his money alone was used to purchase the California property and that there was absolutely no question but that the Louisiana property was all purchased with the proceeds of the California property. Without the presumption of the nature of property held in joint tenancy in California, relators clearly do not satisfy the strict and conclusive burden of proof that Clara's independent funds contributed to the purchase of the Louisiana property. (This would be so even with the benefit of relators' proffered evidence that Clara kept checking accounts in both their names). In applying California law to the instant facts, we find that the California property held as joint tenants is presumed to be joint tenancy property. Therefore, both Clara and Louie held an undivided one-half interest in the property. Even though Louie contended his separate funds were used to purchase the California property, he offered no proof and makes no allegation that he and Clara agreed that although the joint tenancy form would be used, the property would remain his separate property. Therefore, he failed to rebut the presumption that a joint tenancy was intended. And since the California property was held in joint tenancy, each owning an undivided one-half interest, upon the sale of the property the proceeds retained the joint tenancy character. Consequently, half of the proceeds used to purchase the Louisiana property belonged to Clara and the other half to Louie. In light of the foregoing, relators have satisfied the burden of showing, through strict and conclusive proof, that Clara actually contributed one-half of the funds used to purchase the pieces of Louisiana property. Therefore, relators are entitled to onehalf of the tracts of immovable property in Morehouse Parish awarded to Louie A. Gathright, as sole owner, by the trial court, which were at issue before this court. For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the lower courts are affirmed insofar as they held: (1) that relators had the burden of proving their mother's good faith; and (2) that Louie Gathright was in good faith throughout his marriage to Clara Pearl Breland Smith; and (3) that Clara Pearl Breland Smith was in bad faith. We hold that the strict and conclusive burden of proof was satisfied by relators, who are entitled to judgment decreeing them owners of onehalf of the immovables in Louisiana acquired by Louie Gathright and Clara Pearl Breland Smith, all at the cost of respondent. This case is remanded to the district court for the formulation of a judgment in accordance with the views expressed herein.