In In re Marriage of Frapwell (1975) 49 Cal. App. 3d 597, one issue was the characterization of an automobile. The trial court had found that the car was the husband's separate property and, on appeal, the wife argued that it was her separate property because the husband had put the registration slip, the contract of purchase, and the insurance in her name alone and he had said the car was a gift. ( Id. at p. 600.) The appellate court reversed: "However, even though the spouses' intent is controlling and the husband's testimony that he did not intend to make a gift may be evidence of such intent (see DeBoer v. DeBoer (1952) 111 Cal. App. 2d 500 . . . ), the husband's testimony as to the source of the funds or his testimony of his undisclosed intention not to make a gift of a present interest cannot, alone, negative the express terms of the instrument. (See Gudelj v. Gudelj (1953) 41 Cal.2d 202, 259 P.2d 656 . . . .) The fact that the wife herein knew that one reason the car was put in her name was to obtain liability insurance, was not sufficient to show that husband's intent not to make a gift was disclosed to the wife. Since the record is lacking in evidence that there was 'a common understanding or agreement' that the transaction was not what it seemed to be -- to wit a gift -- the court erred in awarding the automobile to husband. Thus, there must be not only evidence of a proper source of funds but also of a communicated intent, in order to avoid the implications from the form of the title." ( In re Marriage of Frapwell, supra, 49 Cal. App. 3d at p. 601.)