Top Law Schools

I was doing a California practice question where:

Wanda and Henry got married in a non-CP state (State X) when they were both students in 1980. Wanda agreed to stay home and take care of their new born son. Henry and Wanda bought a house in State X using "their" savings for a down payment in 1990. Henry made mortgage payments using his earnings. Henry took title to the house in his name only.

Wanda and Henry rented the house out and moved to California. Thereafter, the couple divorced. What rights does each spouse have in the house?

It seems like a simple analysis where I would end up saying that the house is QCP and that W gets 1/2 of the State X house. Can someone break this down and analyze this? For instance, what would be a good way to tie in a title presumption? Also do we need to trace the source of the assets used to purchase the house? Should the down payment and mortgage be analyzed separately?

The model answer wasn't that clear for me. It comes from February 2003 Question 6 California Bar Exam.

Sounds about right.

I think for a CP question you should always do tracing, even if its a quick discussion. I would analyze payments and down payments together. I imagine the question had more parts and so I don't see why separating them would make a difference and would mostly eat up time and space. I would do the title presumption at the beginning with a very, very short explanation.

I would also mention that a California court order may be ineffective against out of state real property. Therefore, if the property is out-of-state, the court will divide all CP and QCP in such a way so there is a 50-50 split and it will not be necessary to alter the nature of the interests held in the out-of-state realty.