Howard v. Howard

McCOMB, J.

Defendant appeals from certain portions of an interlocutory decree of divorce granted to plaintiff.

Questions: First:

Did the trial court err in finding that property known as 1134 San Ysidro Drive, Beverly Hills, California, was purchased by plaintiff with $45,000 which was a gift from defendant to her?

No.

The trial court found as follows:

“That the following assets are the sole and separate property of the Plaintiff:

“2. That certain real property commonly known and designated as 1134 San Ysidro Drive, Beverly Hills, California, as more specifically described in the Conclusions of Law hereinafter appearing and in the decree made and entered pursuant to these Findings.

“That said real property was acquired and purchased by plaintiff with the sum of Forty-five Thousand ($45,000.00) Dollars acquired as a gift by plaintiff from defendant Lindsay Coleman Howard, That it is untrue that plaintiff and cross-defendant is indebted to defendant, and cross-complainant in the sum of Forty-five Thousand ($45,000.00) Dollars, or in any other sum, or at all, as a loan or otherwise, and it is untrue that said defendant and cross-complainant has any lien of any kind upon said real property either in the amount

[190]

of Forty-five Thousand ($45,000.00) Dollars, or in any other sum, or at all,° either as a loan, or otherwise, or at all. ’ ’

Plaintiff testified that the above described property was purchased by her “out of the money he [defendant] gave me to buy the house with.” Further, in answer to this question, “And where did you get the money with which to acquire this piece of real property?” she answered, “My husband gave it to me. ’ ’ She also testified with reference to the money that she used to purchase the house that she told her husband she could never pay it back and he said “I don’t mean for you to pay it back; I want it to look like you are paying it back to me.” Clearly this evidence sustains the trial court’s finding that defendant gave plaintiff the money with which she purchased the property, which in effect supports the trial court’s finding that it was her sole and separate property.