I am not sure if this is family or real estate law... during and 11 year marriage my husband and I started acquiring rental properties. He stated his job prevented him from owning any other business( partner in a big firm ) , so we set up an LLC with me as the sole partner, he signed a document with the LLC filing waiving his "community property rights and all interests in the business" and then we quit claimed each property shortly after purchasing into the name of the LLC. A few years later, we refinanced all mortgages into name of LLC and quit claimed all properties a second time into the name of the LLC through the transaction with the bank. ( first quit claims were held and not filed ). Lastly, we tracked all joint funds used to purchase properties, created notes, and paid back all community funds used to purchase properties and make properties 100% owned by LLC ( solely me. ) All of this was idea and done at his urging. Properties have always been self supporting with their own biz checking accounts and biz credit cards. Now, as we are divorcing, my husband is challenging these deeds and waiver contracts and it seems he misunderstood his companies rules. We have subpoened all of his companies records and there is nothing we can find in writing to back up his claims of needing to relinquish ownership. First he denied signing the waiver of comm prop rights and all quit claim deeds ( silly, thumprint and drivers license on each notarized deed ), now he is just going to challenge them altogether.

We live in California, LLC and houses are in Arizona - both are community property states.

How does California view this situation?

It views that you will need an attorney and it will have to be decided almost on a property by property investigation of the complete paper trail.

The issue is the reason you did the quick claim deeds, IF>>> the suggestion is that it would have been joint property if not for his job, but this was done to "cheat" or get around a legal issue.

If this was done to cheat his old company by allowing him to own properties. ( and there would be no reason he could not) but if the reason for this transaction was the intent ( and I mean intent) to do a crminal act, even if it turns out not to be criminal. Then these transactions may be void, since contracts done for illegal purpose can not be inforced.

But if this is not found to be the case, or since it was not really illegal, it will not reflex on this. Then this is a legal identity of its own, the LLC which is a business owns the property, you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2g

How does California view this situation?

---

Hello m:

We're pretty good here. We can generally take apart pretty simple transactions and tell people what they need to do.

But, come on, m. You have high dollar complex real estate transactions that you can't possible think could be solved by asking questions on the web.

The question you should be asking here, is how can I win, rather than how the law applies. Given the complexity and the amounts involved here, I can promise you one thing, and I want you to listen very carefully:

The one who wins here is going to be the one with the best lawyer and the most money - NOT the one who has the law on their side.

excon