property. The court held that the hotel was community property, and the husband was not entitled to reimbursement. The court stated, however, that had Cal. Civ.Code § 4800.2 [the predecessor statute to § 2640] been applicable, the husband would have been entitled to reimbursement for his separate property contributions to the community property assets upon dissolution. Fabian, 41 Cal.3d at 447-48, 224 Cal.Rptr. 333, 715 P.2d 253. “Under the new law [section 4800.2] no agreement is needed: the tables are turned so that the separate property interest is now preserved unless the right to reimbursement is waived in writing.” Id. at 450, 224 Cal. Rptr. at 339, 715 P.2d at 259 (emphasis added); see also Witt v. Witt (In re Martiage of Witt), 197 Cal.App.3d 103, 105, 242 Cal.Rptr. 646 (1987) (<HOLDING>). There is no contention that Dorothy ever
holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital holding that claims for pain and suffering are the separate property of a spouse holding that when a spouse has given separate property to the marital community section 2640 preserves to the contributing spouse the equity value of his or her separate property contribution unless that retained interest is waived recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value