Gilmer v. Spitalny

BARNARD, P. J.

On March 22, 1945, the plaintiffs recovered a judgment in Arizona against the defendants, husband and wife, the material part reading as follows:

“The above-entitled matter having been submitted on motions for judgment on the pleadings . . . and the Court finding that judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiffs as

upon a community debt of the defendants incurred by the defendant Sam Spitalny.

It is therefore ordered,

[41]

adjudged and decreed that plaintiffs have and recover the sum of ($2,974.14 with interest from November 9, 1939) from the defendants

as a community debt of the defendants incurred by the defendant, 8am Spitalny during the marriage of the defendants. Let execution issue in accordance herewith.”

(Emphasis added.)

On March 5, 1946, the plaintiffs filed this action in Kern County, the complaint alleging that on March 22, 1945, a judgment was entered in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the amount of $2,974.14 principal and $24.20 interest; that no part has been paid; and that interest has accrued in the amount of $209.88. The prayer was for a judgment against the defendants for $3,208.22, with costs. The terms and provisions of the Arizona judgment were not set forth in the complaint or in any exhibit thereto. The plaintiffs also secured a writ of attachment which was levied upon any interest of the defendants in certain real property located in Riverside County, California.

The defendants filed an answer setting forth a copy of the Arizona judgment, and alleging that it was not a personal judgment against the defendant wife, and that it was enforceable as to her only as to her interest in the community property of herself and her husband. The prayer was that plaintiffs take nothing except a judgment in conformance with the Arizona judgment, which shall be restricted to recovery, insofar as the defendant wife is concerned, to her interest in such community property. The defendant wife also filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief alleging more in detail the restrictive nature of the Arizona judgment, and that the property which had been attached in Riverside County is her separate property. The prayer was that it be adjudged that the Arizona judgment was enforceable only against her interest in community property, that her interest in the Riverside property be found to be her separate property, and that it be found that this property is not subject to attachment or execution in this action.