Wanted to get some constructive inputs (for and against) related to changing California policy related to considering fault when dividing inheritance assets during a divorce. Family Code �770(a) (2) states Separate property of a married person includes �All property acquired by the person after marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent�. The �bequest, devise, or descent� verbiage describes the various ways (i.e., will, trust, intestacy) to inherit property. This now characterizes any property acquired by inheritance, regardless if received during the marriage, as separate property.

Unfortunately divorce does not discipline partners for infidelity. Right now a majority of the states have opted for no-fault divorces over fault divorces. A no-fault divorce does not have to prove a partner behaved poorly in order to be granted a divorce nor is that behavior taken into consideration during the division of assets/property judgment. All that is necessary is to pick a reason for a divorce that is recognized by the state (i.e., "incompatibility," "irreconcilable differences," or "irremediable breakdown of the marriage").

Example, Judy has been happily married for twenty years and has three children. Judy receives an inheritance of $500,000 from her mother�s death. Judy puts the money into the bank under her own name and draws interest. In year three of her marriage to Charles, Judy takes $200,000 from her inheritance and purchases the family home with cash. During years four through six Judy�s infidelity desires start to consume her and she ultimately begins cheating on Charles with multiple partners. This blatant disregard of their wedding vows results in their divorce. Judy is entitled to retain the $300,000 plus interest along with the $200,000 house as separate property. The result of Judy�s infidelity leaves Charles and his three children without a home.

In no fault states it doesn�t matter why you broke up. Having the ability to send a message allows a moral victory and punishment for the people who broke their vows. Sending a message is the key. People have a tendency to think before they act if they understand the punishment before they commit the infraction. Therefore, amending Family Code �770(a) (2) to include fault would close this loophole.

I firmly believe people should not be given a pass to flourish in their stupidity because they believe their windfall of money should be magically connected to their zipper.

IANAL, but it is my understanding that UNCONVERTED inheritance is not a marital asset. Interest accrued during the marriage is. If you take cash inheritance and use it to buy a marital home, it is converted into marital property. If you inherit a home, and live in it, the home is not marital property but any equity built in it is.

It is the no-fault thing that is a problem, not inheritance rules. If this were to get changed as you say, then Charles could cheat and take off with $250,000 worth of assets that Judy's family never intended him to have. In either case, the home purchase would be a marital asset and not subject to inheritance rules in division of property, because she did not inherit the house; she bought it.

I received an inheritance and keep it in cash just for this reason. My husband is entitled to interest accrued meanwhile.