Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Home Husband Quitclaimed to Wife Was Community Property
Fifth District Justice Detjen Files Vigorous Dissent
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Fifth District Court of Appeal Acting Presiding Justice Jennifer R.S. Detjen yesterday expressed strong disapproval of the majority’s affirmance of an order requiring either that proceeds from the sale of a home be divided equally between the parties or that the ex-wife purchase the interest of her former husband, maintaining that title to the real property was vested solely in the woman.
Affirmance of a judgment by Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Alan K. Cassidy came in an unpublished opinion by Justice M. Bruce Smith, joined in by Fresno Superior Court Judge Gregory T. Fain, sitting on assignment. Smith declared that there was an implied finding by Cassidy that the home in Waterford, California is community property which, he noted, appellant Patricia Lopez Mendoza did not challenge on appeal.
Her ex-husband, Rafael Sanchez Garcia, did execute a quitclaim deed in her favor but, Smith said, the purpose of doing so was limited. He wrote:
“Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that in signing the quitclaim deed at the time of purchase of the home, Garcia intended to give up his community property interest in the marital home in the event of a subsequent divorce. On the contrary, the record clearly shows Garcia signed the quitclaim deed for the limited, instrumental purpose of enabling Mendoza to obtain a conventional loan in her name to finance the joint purchase.”
Smith added:
“We understand and are sympathetic to Mendoza’s situation, including her status as a pro per litigant. However, given the deficiencies in the record and application of the doctrine of implied findings, there is no basis to reverse the trial court’s order.”
Detjen’s Dissent
Detjen said in her dissent:
“The majority opinion declares the superior court ‘apparently determined’ ‘the marital home was community property’ and this finding was ‘sufficiently supported.’…Yet, a proper review of the appellate record before us—which is neither complex nor voluminous—and pertinent legal authorities demonstrate such a finding is untenable.”
She pointed out:
“The record shows, on September 10, 2014, the Waterford residence was granted to Mendoza, ‘a married woman, as her sole and separate property’ and Garcia signed a quitclaim deed relinquishing any interest or claim therein ‘to Patricia Lopez Mendoza, a married woman as her sole and separate property.’ ”
Copies of the grant deed were duly recorded, the justice noted. She declared:
“[I]nstead of applying the pertinent law to uncontradicted evidence, reaching the straightforward legal conclusion, and finally putting an end to a meritless and protracted action, the superior court accepted at face value Garcia’s assertion the Waterford residence is community property. In addition, even though Mendoza was proceeding in propria persona and English is not her primary language, the record displays the court’s palpable eagerness to leave the parties to their own devices.”
‘Slipshod Approach’
Detjen complained:
“The majority opinion… elects to affirm the July 6, 2023 property division order, thereby ratifying the superior court’s slipshod approach. The majority opinion summarily rejects all Mendoza’s contentions on appeal…, though these contentions should have been rendered moot upon a finding the Waterford residence is Mendoza’s separate property.”
The dissenter argued:
“The superior court failed to consider the record and comprehend the legal significance of the undisputed facts. Regrettably, the majority opinion follows suit. Below and on appeal, Mendoza exerted great effort to be heard, but to no avail. Though she is legally entitled to keep the Waterford residence because it is her separate property, she will lose her home due to judicial inertia.”
The case is Marriage of Mendoza and Garcia, F086779.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company