FAM § 760

Property acquired during marriage is community (FAM § 760)

FAM § 760: All property acquired by a married person during marriage while domiciled in California is community property, unless a statute says otherwise.

Official text FAM § 760 — California

Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 760 is the foundation of California's community property system and it is one sentence: except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property. Three features of that sentence decide most arguments about who owns what.

Acquisition during the marriage is the test — not whose name is on the title, not who paid, and not who earned the money. That is why a car, a pension contribution, a business interest or a rental property bought during the marriage from one spouse's salary is community property even though only one name appears anywhere: the salary itself was community property, and what it bought takes the same character. "Wherever situated" means a house in another state or another country is not outside the section. And "while domiciled in this state" is the geographical limit: property acquired while the couple lived elsewhere is not made community by this section, though the quasi-community property rules deal with much of it on a divorce in California.

The opening words, "except as otherwise provided by statute", carry a great deal of weight. Section 770 defines separate property — what was owned before marriage, and what was acquired during it by gift, bequest, devise or descent, together with the rents, issues and profits of that property. Section 771 makes earnings after the date of separation separate. Other statutes deal with transmutation between spouses, with community contributions to separate assets, and with reimbursement. Characterisation of a particular asset, especially one that was mixed or improved over time, is a technical exercise that regularly needs tracing evidence, and it belongs with a family lawyer.

When it applies

  • A rental property bought during the marriage in one spouse's name only
  • A pension or retirement account built up while married
  • A business started by one spouse during the marriage
  • Savings accumulated from one salary while the other stayed at home
  • A home bought here while a property abroad stayed in one name
  • Working out what is in the pot before dividing anything

What this section does not say

  • It is not about whose name is on the title. Acquisition during marriage is the test, and title alone does not make an asset separate.
  • It does not cover gifts and inheritances. Property acquired during marriage by gift, bequest, devise or descent is separate property under § 770.
  • It does not reach earnings after separation. Section 771 makes a spouse's earnings and accumulations after the date of separation their separate property.
  • It does not apply to property acquired while domiciled elsewhere. The section is limited to acquisition while domiciled in California; other property is dealt with under the quasi-community property rules.
  • It does not divide anything. Division on dissolution is § 2550, and characterising an asset under this section is only the first step.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A rental property is bought during a marriage out of one spouse's salary and put in that spouse's name alone. On separation they say it is theirs.

How the wording applies

Section 760 makes property acquired during the marriage while domiciled in California community property, and the test is acquisition during the marriage rather than whose name is on the title. It turns on the source of the funds: a salary earned during the marriage is community, so what it bought is community, whereas an inheritance would be separate under section 770.

How the parties settled it

The property is treated as community, valued by a jointly instructed appraiser, and one spouse keeps it with an equalising payment to the other out of other assets.

Illustrative example

A pension has been accumulating throughout a long marriage, in the name of the spouse who was employed.

How the wording applies

Contributions and accruals during the marriage are community property, and the fact this hinges on is the period rather than the account: service before the marriage and after separation is separate under sections 770 and 771, so the community share is worked out by reference to the dates.

How the parties settled it

The parties agree the marital portion by reference to the dates of marriage and separation and divide it by a qualified order, rather than trading it against other assets.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Valli v. Valli, 58 Cal. 4th 1396 (2014)

Supreme Court of California

What the court had to decide

Whether a life insurance policy purchased with community property funds during marriage, with the spouse named as sole owner and beneficiary, is community property or the spouse's separate property.

What it held

The life insurance policy is community property unless the statutory transmutation requirements have been met.

In the court's words
We conclude that, unless the statutory transmutation requirements have been met, the life insurance policy is community property.

Green v. Green, 56 Cal. 4th 1130 (2013)

Supreme Court of California

What the court had to decide

Whether retirement benefits attributable to premarital military service, purchased with community funds during marriage, are community property under Family Code section 760.

What it held

Retirement benefits are characterized based on the marital status at the time the services underlying the benefits were rendered, so the military service credit is the husband's separate property except for the community's contribution to the cost of obtaining it.

In the court's words
What matters in determining whether retirement benefits are community or separate property is the person’s marital status when the services on which the benefits are based were rendered.

Ruiz v. Ruiz, 194 Cal. App. 4th 348 (2011)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Does the general presumption in Family Code § 760 that property acquired during marriage is community property apply to a lump-sum workers' compensation permanent disability award received during the marriage, or does the rule in Raphael v. Bloomfield create a presumption that such awards are separate property?

What it held

The court held that the general presumption in Family Code § 760 applies, and the burden is on the spouse claiming separate property to prove that a portion of the workers' compensation award is not community property; the award is partially community property to the extent it compensates for lost earnings during the marriage.

In the court's words
If that is indeed what Raphael intended, however, we disagree, because it is contrary to the legislatively expressed policy that all property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. (Fam. Code, §-760.)

Ettefagh v. Ettefagh, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (2007)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What standard of proof is required to rebut the presumption under Family Code section 760 that property acquired during marriage is community property?

What it held

The standard of proof required to rebut the community property presumption of Family Code section 760 is a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.

In the court's words
We conclude, however, that the trial court applied the correct standard of proof.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

FAM § 770 Inheritance is separate property under FAM § 770 FAM § 771 California Family Code § 771 - Earnings after separation are separate property FAM § 2550 Equal division of community estate – FAM § 2550 FAM § 1102 Both spouses must sign to sell or mortgage: FAM § 1102

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of FAM § 760 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages