Howard v. Howard

California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 1951 No. Civ. 17899; Civ. 17900Published

Before: Hanson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a divorce decree cannot be granted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony or admissions of the parties, requiring instead the testimony of a third person. Additionally, the court affirmed that a second divorce action does not abate ipso facto simply because a prior action was filed by the other spouse.

Issues

Whether a divorce action abates because a prior action was filed by the other spouse.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a divorce decree without third-party corroboration.

Disposition. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and dismissed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule is otherwise.”

“No divorce can be granted . . . upon the uncorroborated statement, admission, or testimony of the parties.”

“In short, testimony of a third person, not a party, is required by way of corroboration.”

HANSON, J. pro tem.

This is an action for divorce or rather we should say two actions for one and the same divorce, one instituted by the wife against her husband and the other by the husband against the wife.

The wife instituted her action for divorce

in propria persona

by filing her complaint on February 3, 1949, but without serving her husband with summons. Without knowledge of her action the husband filed his action for divorce on March 14, 1949. The wife filed an answer therein to the merits and not by way of abatement. The husband likewise filed an answer in the action instituted by the wife. In that answer he specifically averred that he had instituted a separate action for divorce against her in which summons had been issued and served and that he reserved the right to prosecute that action.

The two actions came on for trial at the same time before the same judge with a stipulation on the part of the parties that all evidence introduced in either action should be deemed introduced in the other.

The trial judge found that the husband was entitled to a divorce and that a certain real property, title to which was of record in the adult daughter of the wife by a former marriage, was the community property of the parties to the divorce actions. From a judgment entered accordingly in the action of the husband and a judgment entered in her action denying her a divorce without any adjudication as to the property rights of the parties, the wife appeals. As her briefs do not assign any errors with respect to the action she instituted, we deem that appeal to be abandoned. In the action instituted by her husband the wife assigns as error (1) a want of jurisdiction in the court below (2) insufficiency of the evidence to warrant granting a divorce to the husband (3) insufficiency of evidence to sustain the court’s award as to property. In view of the conclusion we have reached as to the disposition that must be made of the case we shall not discuss the last error assigned.

[128]

The contention that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action of the husband is based on the thought that it abated

ipso facto

Howard v. Howard

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief