Here, Robert contend that the house wasacquired with the title of joint tenancy, thus, it’s community property as amatter of law. Esther asserted that the reason of buying with the title ofjoint tenancy was advised by realtor because of tax. When she bought the house,Robert agreed with oral that the house was hers. Robert rebut that according tothe Civil Code, his oral agreement would not be effectivebecause the oral agreement cannot overcome the presumption that propertyacquired during marriage injoint tenancy is community property. Thus, the purchasing money $17,500 was onlyseparate money, but $150,000 ($167,500 minus $17,500)would be community property.
The Court found that the issue is whether the lawof the Civil Code section is able to applythis case with retroactive. The Court held that even though the intention of the Civil Code is applying with retroactive,the law would be unconstitutional because retroactive application of this law deprivesEsther of her vested property right. If the house became community propertyaccording to the CivilCode, it would violate the due process of law.