Blache v. Blache

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 1947 No. Civ. 13294Published

Before: Ward

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in ordering Jeanne to pay Maurice's indebtedness to Anna and her attorneys before determining on retrial whether the property in question was Jeanne's separate property or community property.

Issues

Whether the trial court could order a third party to pay a defendant's indebtedness to a plaintiff prior to a final determination of property ownership on retrial.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Until on retrial it is determined whether all the property is Jeanne’s separate property or not, no order such as the present order on appeal may be made directing Jeanne to pay Anna’s costs and attorney fees.”

“The lower court may order Maurice to pay Anna’s costs and attorney fees, but payment must be made from Maurice’s property.”

WARD, J.

This is an appeal by Jeanne C. Pedebidou, also known as Jeanne Blache, from an order directing her to pay $7,989.13 to Ray L. Mulcrevy, Deputy County Clerk,

[169]

to be applied against the indebtedness of Maurice J. Blache to respondent Anna Blache and her attorneys.

The parties will be referred to as Anna, Maurice and Jeanne. As stated in this court’s earlier opinion, “They are the components of a marital triangle constructed by Maurice when he married Jeanne under the mistaken impression that he had secured a divorce from Anna.”

(Blache

Blache,

69 Cal.App.2d 616, 618 [160 P.2d 136].) More than twenty years after the marriage ceremony of Maurice and Jeanne, Anna brought an action for separate maintenance, for a share of property which she claimed was the community property of herself and Maurice and for attorneys’ fees. Jeanne was joined as a party defendant because Maurice had transferred property to her. The trial court refused to grant Anna separate maintenance but rendered a judgment in her favor for $7,989.13 in lieu of her rights in any community property, set aside the transfers and allowed her attorneys’ fees of $6,500. Anna and Jeanne, but not Maurice, appealed the judgment to this court.

By its order, as modified, this court ruled: “The judgment insofar as it refers to attorney fees and all provisions of said judgment protective of those fees are affirmed; the portions of the judgment adjudicating Maurice’s ownership of one-half of the real and personal property, and vacating and setting aside certain transfers of his interests in such properties to Jeanne, insofar as such transfers affect his one-half interest, and the provisions of the judgment granting an injunction against Maurice until the rights of the parties can be determined, are also affirmed; in other respects the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial in accordance with the views herein expressed.”

(Blache

Blache v. Blache

AI Brief

WARD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief