A person fell into debt due to an act of fraud and as a result he and his spouse were required to sell their joint home.
The Court rejected the spouse's contention and held that the “community property presumption” applies to this debt. Spouses' assets are governed by the “community property presumption”, which is based on the notion that spouses share both rights and obligations. The presumption that the spouses must bear debts incurred during their joint life can be refuted when it comes to a debt which is distinctly of a personal nature, such as: expenses on separate property, expenses incurred in breach of the marriage contract, or debt created by a criminal conduct of the spouse. Here, the spouse did not commit the alleged act of fraud, but rather fell victim to an act of fraud that was directed at him, and therefore, the debt does not fall within the scope of the exceptions to the “community property presumption” and the spouse is also liable for this debt.