Venza v. Venza

PEEK, J.

This is an appeal from an order fixing the fees of the receiver and his attorneys, and assessing such costs against defendants. On September 21, 1949, plaintiff, the divorced wife of defendant Joseph J. Venza, instituted this action to set aside a property settlement agreement which had been ratified by the court and made a part of an interlocutory decree of divorce rendered some 18 months earlier, and to establish a community property interest in a

[679]

cannery operated by defendants and for an accounting. The complaint alleged that plaintiff and defendant Joseph J. Venza lived together for several years under an agreement to share equally in their gains; that thereafter they married; that they acquired property consisting of a substantial cannery business; that through their joint earnings they accumulated a relatively large estate; that said defendant concealed the amounts of income and the wealth of the business, and that but for the representations of said defendant, plaintiff would not have entered into the property settlement agreement.

Upon the affidavit of Herbert P. Hawkins, one of the attorneys for plaintiff, the court, on October 2, 1948, issued an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order, restraining defendants from selling or encumbering the products of the cannery during the 1948 season. On October 7, 1948, defendants moved the court to dissolve the restraining order, or that plaintiff furnish an undertaking as a condition of keeping it in force. On October 8,1948, the court appointed a receiver to take over the cannery business. The appointment of the receiver was upheld by this court in

Venza

v.

Venza,

94 Cal.App.2d 878 [211 P.2d 913]. The opinion shows that the trial court suggested the appointment in order to keep the business going. The attorneys for plaintiff concurred in the appointment. The attorneys for defendants stated they would not stipulate to the appointment but “as a practical matter that would work out all right.”

After the trial of plaintiff’s cause of action to establish a community property interest in the cannery, the court adopted findings favorable to said defendant. The court found that the parties did not agree to pool their resources and share equally in the fruits of their labor; that the cannery did not increase in value as alleged in the complaint; that plaintiff did not rely upon any representations made by said defendant nor was she induced thereby to enter into the property settlement agreement; that said defendant did not conceal any community assets, and that it is not true that plaintiff has been deprived of great sums of money, but on the contrary, it is true that the said property settlement was and is in all respects fair and equitable.