[Read this glossary entry on atharkhan.com](https://atharkhan.com/glossary/tracing/) **Tracing** is proving the source and path of funds or property so a court can determine a claimed community or separate interest. Mixing funds does not necessarily erase their character, but a claim still needs adequate proof. ## In California Family Law [Family Code section 760](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=760.) generally treats property acquired during marriage while domiciled in California as community property, subject to statutory exceptions. [Section 770](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=770.) identifies separate property, including premarital property and specified gifts or inheritances. The spouse claiming a separate source for a disputed acquisition bears the tracing burden. **Direct tracing** connects a purchase or payment to separate funds available and used for that purpose, including evidence of the required intent. [[Case Law/M/Mix, In re Marriage of (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604|In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 612-614]] illustrates that the court evaluates the supporting records and credible testimony together. Mere availability of separate funds does not by itself prove their use. [[Family Living Expense|family living expense]] tracing, also called [[Recapitulation|recapitulation]], relies on the family-expense presumption to establish [[Exhaustion|exhaustion]] of community funds at the relevant purchase or payment time. [[Case Law/B/Braud, In re Marriage of (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 797|In re Marriage of Braud (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 797, 823-824]] explains why a sufficiently detailed account of the source and use is needed. Labels such as [[Marital Recapitulation|marital recapitulation]] do not cure missing proof. The recognized methods are not an exclusive list of permissible labels. [[Case Law/C/Ciprari, In re Marriage of (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83|In re Marriage of Ciprari (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 95-97]] permits reasonable, well-supported, nonspeculative alternatives suited to the facts. That flexibility does not validate an unsupported marriage-wide netting exercise. Compare [[Total Marital Recapitulation|total marital recapitulation]] and [[Case Law/S/See v. See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778|See v. See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778]]. [[Case Law/S/Simonis, In re Marriage of (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1129|In re Marriage of Simonis (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1129]] also required adequate tracing for claimed separate-property payments after separation. Timing matters in that setting too. Tracing a source and applying the governing property rule are distinct steps. [[Case Law/M/Marsden, In re Marriage of (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426|In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426]], for example, addresses allocation of interests in a premarital residence paid down partly with community funds. A reimbursement claim under [section 2640](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=2640.) has its own conditions and limits. **Example:** An inheritance enters an account that also receives wages. To claim a later investment as separate, the spouse must support the source of the money actually used for that investment. The size of the inheritance alone does not settle the issue.