What Is the FC § 1000 Order of Satisfaction?
California Family Code section 1000 governs which pool of assets pays a tort judgment against a married person first. Both the tortfeasor spouse’s separate property and the couple’s community property are potentially available, but FC § 1000 imposes a mandatory order for tapping them, and that order flips depending on whether the tortious activity benefited the community.
This is a favorite California Bar Exam issue because the “obvious” answer — community property first, always — is wrong roughly half the time. The threshold question is never how sympathetic the tortfeasor is; it’s whether the activity that caused the harm benefited the marital community.
The Two-Track Rule
FC § 1000 sets up exactly two tracks, and every tort fact pattern falls into one of them:
| Did the tortious activity benefit the community? | Order of satisfaction |
|---|---|
| Yes | Community property first; tortfeasor’s separate property only if CP is insufficient |
| No | Tortfeasor’s separate property first; community property only if SP is insufficient |
Get the threshold question right and the order writes itself. Get it wrong, and you’ll state the order backward — a classic scored error on bar essays.
Community-Benefiting Torts: CP First
When the activity causing the tort was undertaken for the community’s benefit — running a family business, driving to a job that supports the household, performing household errands — the community property pool is tapped first to satisfy the judgment. Only if community property runs short does the tortfeasor’s separate property come into play.
The theory is straightforward: if the activity benefited the marriage, the marital estate should bear the first-line risk of that activity going wrong.
Non-Community-Benefiting Torts: Separate Property First
When the tortious activity had nothing to do with benefiting the community — a purely personal frolic, an affair, a side venture kept from the other spouse — the order reverses. The tortfeasor’s own separate property must be exhausted first. Community property is reached only if the tortfeasor’s separate property is insufficient to satisfy the judgment.
If community property does end up paying a judgment for non-community-benefiting conduct while the tortfeasor’s separate property was actually available, the community is entitled to reimbursement from the tortfeasor spouse. This reimbursement rule polices the order and prevents a tortfeasor from letting the community shoulder harm caused by conduct that never benefited it.
Worked Example: The Delivery Business vs. The Affair
Scenario A. Marcus drives for the family’s food-delivery side business — a community property enterprise both spouses rely on for income. While making a delivery, he negligently rear-ends another car, and the injured driver obtains a $75,000 judgment against him.
- Because the delivery run benefited the community, the community property is tapped first.
- If the couple’s community assets can cover the $75,000, Marcus’s separate property is never touched.
Scenario B. Now suppose Marcus was driving to meet someone during an extramarital affair, with no connection to the family business, when he caused the same accident and the same $75,000 judgment resulted.
- Because the affair did not benefit the community, Marcus’s own separate property must be exhausted first.
- Only if Marcus’s separate property can’t cover the full $75,000 does the injured driver reach community property — and if community property does end up paying because the order wasn’t followed, the community can seek reimbursement from Marcus.
A Related Trap: Gambling Debts and Divorce
FC § 1000 governs satisfaction during the marriage. It does not automatically control how a debt gets divided at divorce. Suppose Hank runs up a $50,000 gambling debt during the marriage. While married, the debt can be collected from community property (because it’s a debt incurred by either spouse) and from Hank’s separate property. But when the couple later divorces, the court can assign that gambling debt entirely to Hank’s separate property as part of the divorce-stage debt allocation — a different rule from FC § 1000’s during-marriage satisfaction order.
Common Mistakes Bar Candidates Make
The most common error is assuming the order is always “community property first,” treating FC § 1000 as if it only had one track. It doesn’t. Always identify whether the activity benefited the community before stating the order — that single determination controls which pool gets hit first.
A second common error is conflating personal liability with the satisfaction order. The non-tortfeasor spouse is never personally liable for the other spouse’s tort; their own separate property stays off the table entirely. FC § 1000 only governs the order between the tortfeasor’s separate property and the community property, not whether the innocent spouse’s separate assets are exposed.
FAQ
Is community property always tapped first to satisfy a spouse’s tort judgment?
No. Community property is tapped first only when the tortious activity benefited the community. If the activity did not benefit the community, the tortfeasor’s own separate property must be exhausted first.
Is the non-tortfeasor spouse’s separate property ever used to pay the other spouse’s tort judgment?
No. FC § 1000 only allocates the order between the tortfeasor’s separate property and community property. The non-tortfeasor spouse’s separate property is never liable for the other spouse’s tort.
What happens if community property pays a judgment for non-community-benefiting conduct out of order?
The community is entitled to reimbursement from the tortfeasor spouse if community property satisfies a judgment for conduct that didn’t benefit the community while the tortfeasor’s separate property was actually available.
Key Takeaways
- FC § 1000 sets a mandatory order for satisfying a tort judgment against a married tortfeasor: community property first for community-benefiting activity, separate property first for non-community-benefiting activity.
- The threshold question is always whether the tortious activity benefited the community — not how sympathetic either spouse is.
- The non-tortfeasor spouse’s separate property is never exposed to the other spouse’s tort liability.
- If the order is violated and community property pays for non-benefiting conduct, the community can seek reimbursement from the tortfeasor.
- FC § 1000’s during-marriage order is distinct from how a divorce court later allocates the same debt.
This article is educational and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed California attorney about your situation.
Related guides
- community property creditor rights
- divorce debt allocation
- necessaries spousal liability
- negligence per se