Hughes v. Hughes

California Court of Appeal May 1, 1946 No. Civ. 15165; Civ. 15166Published

Before: Wilson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment regarding property ownership and the validity of the nunc pro tunc amendment, but struck the portion of the judgment concerning the Toney property because it was not raised in the pleadings. The court further held that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the validity of deeds signed in blank due to her long-standing course of conduct.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fact regarding property ownership were sufficient.
Whether the court erred in amending the judgment nunc pro tunc to correct a clerical omission.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from asserting the invalidity of deeds signed in blank.
Whether the court erred in adjudicating title to property not included in the pleadings.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed; appeal from order denying new trial dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The findings with reference to the title and ownership of both of said properties were based on conflicting evidence and will not be disturbed.”

“The amendment was not to correct a judicial error but to rectify a clerical omission.”

WILSON, J.

Plaintiff brought this action for divorce and for division of community property consisting of several parcels of realty and personalty. The three parcels involved in the appeals are designated as (1) the Long Beach property, (2) the Western Avenue property, and (3) the Toney property.

Plaintiff appeals (1) from the judgment and from the amendment

nunc pro tunc

thereto; (2) from the order denying her motion to vacate the judgment and enter a new and different judgment; (3) from the order denying a new trial.

[329]

Defendant J. L. Hughes appeals from those portions of the judgment determining that plaintiff and defendant A. P. Hughes are entitled to an undivided one-fourth interest each in the Long Beach property, and that he is not the owner and entitled to the whole of said property; also from the order amending the judgment.

Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she and her husband, A. P. Hughes, had community property including the Long Beach and Western Avenue properties, and that defendant J. L. Hughes held some of their community property in his name. Said defendant answered denying that he held any property in trust and alleging that he was the owner in fee of both of said properties and that neither of them belonged to the community.

Sufficiency of the findings.

The court found (1) that an undivided one-half interest in the Long Beach property was community property and (2) that J. L. Hughes did not hold title to any other property belonging to the community. The only reasonable construction of said finding is that J. L. Hughes was the owner of the Western Avenue property and the other one-half interest in the Long Beach property. Since the findings follow the language of the pleadings and were approved as to form by counsel for all parties before presentation to the trial judge for signature, plaintiff’s objections to the findings have no force. Additional detailed findings would not aid her cause, since they could not be otherwise than adverse to her contentions as to the facts.

Hughes v. Hughes

AI Brief

WILSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief