California Community Property
Equal — not equitable. That word does real work here.
Among the five states on this platform, California alone MANDATES equal division of the community estate (§ 2550) — Texas divides just-and-right, Arizona equitably, Florida and North Carolina equitably with presumptions. So California property cases are usually decided at characterization: what's community, what's separate, what's quasi-community — and when the marriage economically ended (§ 70's complete-and-final-break test).
The mandate — § 2550
California divides the COMMUNITY estate EQUALLY — not equitably — unless the parties agree otherwise in writing or stipulate orally in open court (§ 2550). Characterization, not discretion, is where California property cases are usually decided.
The cutoff — § 70
The date of separation is the day of a complete and final break — expressed intent to end the marriage PLUS conduct consistent with it; the court weighs all relevant evidence (§ 70). It is the community-accrual cutoff: earnings and debts after it are separate in character.
The duties — §§ 721/1100
Spouses owe each other the highest good-faith and fair-dealing duties in interspousal transactions (§ 721(b)), and each spouse's management and control of community personal property carries the § 1100 limits (gifts, disposal of family furnishings, business notice). Disclosure violations feed §§ 1101/2107 remedies — flags for counsel, never verdicts here.
The characterizer
Add your items — when acquired, how acquired — and the organizer applies the statutory rules. Flags, never adjudication; everything stays on this device.
The organizer's read (0)
Add an item on the left — each gets the statutory rules applied, with the reason stated.
Characterization here is an organizer over the statutory rules — title form, transmutation writings (§ 852), reimbursement claims (§ 2640), and fiduciary issues can all move an item, and those are exactly the calls that deserve counsel.
Authority locked — retrieved from the hash-pinned corpus