Opinion ID: 1175619
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: (6) The Ranger sloop is James' separate property.

Text: During the marriage James arranged to purchase a 33-foot sloop for $25,000. He paid the $13,000 down payment with his separate property, and borrowed from the Lockheed Credit Union to finance the balance of the price. At the insistence of the credit union, both James and Betty signed for the loan, and title to the boat was issued in both names. James paid all loan payments and expenses of the boat from his separate funds. The trial court concluded that the boat was James' separate property. [10] Betty objects to this conclusion and asserts a community property interest in the boat. In the absence of the antenuptial agreement Betty's claim, based upon the presumption that property acquired on credit during marriage is community property ( Kenney v. Kenney (1954) 128 Cal. App.2d 128, 142 [274 P.2d 951]; Hogevoll v. Hogevoll (1943) 59 Cal. App.2d 188, 193-194 [138 P.2d 693]), might have merit. Civil Code section 5133, however, specifies that the presumptions of the Family Law Act do not govern the status of marital property when there is a marriage settlement containing stipulations contrary thereto. (See Cheney v. City & County of San Francisco (1936) 7 Cal.2d 565, 569 [61 P.2d 754]; Kenney v. Kenney, supra, 128 Cal. App.2d 128, 135.) Thus in the Dawley marriage the community or separate character of property is not fixed by the presumptions set forth in the Civil Code or by the judicial opinions interpreting those presumptions, but by the terms of the antenuptial contract. [11] The antenuptial agreement on its face appears a comprehensive attempt to provide that all property owned by the Dawleys at the time of marriage, or acquired thereafter, would be either James' or Bettys' separate property. As we read the contract, the parties intended there to be no community property. The conduct of the parties pursuant to this agreement, as summarized in the trial court's finding quoted in part four of this opinion, supports that interpretation. Although the agreement does not expressly refer to property purchased on credit, it provides that property acquired by James by purchase ... during the marriage shall be his separate property. As we have observed, James paid the down payment on the boat from his separate assets, and paid each installment on the loan as it fell due from separate property. Under these circumstances we interpret the agreement, as did the trial court, to render the sloop James' separate property.