In In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, the husband executed a grant deed conveying his separate real property to himself and his wife as joint tenants. The purpose of the transmutation was to secure financing to be used to improve the property. Three years later, the parties divorced. The trial court found the grant deed conveying the property from husband to husband and wife as joint tenants was void because the wife had not given sufficient consideration for the transfer; she, as a fiduciary, bore the burden of establishing that the grant deed was not the product of undue influence (Fam. Code, 721, subd. (b)); and she failed to sustain that burden. (Delaney, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 993-994.) The appellate court rejected the wife's argument on appeal that the trial court should have applied the presumptions derived from Evidence Code section 662 and Family Code section 2581 instead of that derived from Family Code section 721, subdivision (b). (Delaney, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 996-997.) The court concluded the presumption of undue influence found in Family Code section 721, subdivision (b), "applies to any interspousal property transaction where evidence is offered that one spouse has been disadvantaged by the other," regardless of whether the conveyance was from joint tenancy to separate property or otherwise. Accordingly, the burden fell on the wife "to establish that husband's transmutation of the Property to joint tenancy was freely and voluntarily made, with full knowledge of all the facts, and with a complete understanding of the effect of a transfer from his unencumbered separate property interest to a joint interest as husband and wife." (Id. at pp. 998-1000.) The First District went further, holding that section 721 also overcomes the title presumption of section 2851. (In re Marriage of Delaney, at p. 998.) The court first questioned whether section 2581 even applies to transmutations, reasoning that Family Code section 2581 governs property acquired during marriage and the "acquisition of property during marriage by purchase or gift is clearly different from an interspousal transmutation of property already owned by one or both spouses." (Ibid.) In any event, the court said: "the presumption set out in that section 2851 would be as much in direct conflict with the presumption established by section 721 as was Evidence Code section 662, in both In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277 and this case." (Ibid.)