Cash v. Cash

California Court of Appeal Apr 28, 1952 No. Civ. 14952Published

Before: Peters

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's division of community property was not an abuse of discretion, but that the finding designating a joint savings account as the husband's separate property was unsupported by evidence, as the husband failed to rebut the presumption of joint tenancy.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in the division of community property?
Was the evidence sufficient to support the finding that a joint bank account was the husband's separate property?

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Evidence as to the source of the funds standing alone, cannot rebut the presumption that the account was intended to be what it states it is—a joint tenancy account.”

PETERS, P. J.

Daisy E. Cash, plaintiff and appellant, brought this action for a divorce against Norman V. Cash, defendant and respondent. The trial court granted an interlocutory decree of divorce to Daisy on the ground of cruelty, divided between the parties what it found to be the community property, determined certain property to be the separate property of the respective parties, and provided for payments to the wife for a limited period. Daisy appeals, contending that the evidence does not support the finding that a certain bank account was the separate property of Norman, and that the division of community property was unfair.

These parties were married in Colorado in 1926, came to San Francisco in 1941, and separated in 1950. There are no children of the marriage. The evidence as to cruelty on the part of the husband is weak, but is sufficient to support the finding. The husband has not appealed. The main controversy between the parties at the trial, and on this appeal, is over the division of the property.

The trial court found the following to be community property, and awarded it as follows:

1. The residence of the parties valued at $11,000 was awarded to the wife subject to a $5,000 lien payable in two years in favor of the husband. The husband was required to pay the taxes and insurance during this two-year period, and the wife was required to assume the other expenses of upkeep and maintenance.

2. The furniture in the house belonging to the parties, and valued at $1,200 was awarded to the wife. Certain tools and personal effects of the husband were found to be his separate property, and certain other designated property to be the separate property of the wife.

3. A commercial bank account totalling $900 was divided equally between the parties.

4. An automobile valued at $400 was awarded to the husband.

5. A $2,000 insurance policy on the life of the husband was awarded to him, and a $1,000 insurance policy on the life of the wife was awarded to her.

The court also awarded to the wife counsel fees, and $125 per month for six months, and $100 a month for the next

[536]

Cash v. Cash

AI Brief

PETERS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief