Walker v. Walker

California Court of Appeal Jan 9, 1952 No. Civ. 18620Published

Before: Vallee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the divorce decree regarding the finding of extreme cruelty and the status of the diamond ring, but reversed the findings regarding the postal savings account and the real property, remanding for further proceedings on those issues.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the finding of extreme cruelty.
Whether the evidence supported the classification of the postal savings account and diamond ring as separate property.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that real property held in joint tenancy was community property.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The findings of the ultimate facts, from which the court concluded that defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty, are amply supported by the evidence.”

“There was no evidence that the account was the separate property of plaintiff, and the finding that it was is unsupported.”

“The purchase of the property with community funds and the taking of title thereto in the names of the spouses as joint tenants is insufficient to establish that the property is community property in the absence of any evidence of an intent to the contrary.”

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal by defendant from an interlocutory judgment of divorce.

The divorce was awarded to plaintiff on the ground of extreme cruelty. A postal savings account and a diamond ring were found and adjudged to be the separate property of plaintiff. A parcel of realty, described as Lot 4 in Block 5 of the Williamson Tract, was found to be community property.

[607]

The court decreed that all community property be sold and that after the payment of $1,500 to plaintiff, the proceeds be divided equally between plaintiff and defendant.

Defendant’s assignments of error are that the evidence does not (1) establish extreme cruelty, (2) support the findings that the postal savings account and the diamond ring are the separate property of plaintiff, (3) support the finding that the parcel of realty is community property.

No purpose would be served in reciting the evidence of cruelty, much of which is offensive and revolting. Suffice it to say that the findings of the ultimate facts, from which the court concluded that defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty, are amply supported by the evidence. The question before the trial court was simply which witnesses were to be believed, and to evaluate the evidence. As Mr. Justice MeComb stated in

Marson

Rand,

107 Cal.App.2d 466, 468 [237 P.2d 18] ; “ ‘It is not the province of a reviewing court to present, by way of opinion, a detailed argument on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment where it appears that the question is one purely of determining which side shall be believed. The trial court having determined this with the witnesses before it, the controversy is settled. ’ ” Whether in any given case there has been the wrongful infliction of grievous mental suffering is a question of fact to be deduced from all the circumstances in the particular case, keeping always in mind the intelligence, refinement, and delicacy of sentiment of the complaining party; and the finding of the trial court, based on any reasonable analysis of the facts and circumstances as shown by the evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.

Walker v. Walker

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief