In Re Marriage of Frapwell

49 Cal.App.3d 597 (1975) 122 Cal. Rptr. 718 In re the Marriage of RUTH MAY and BYRON HENRY FRAPWELL.

RUTH MAY FRAPWELL, Appellant,

v.

JAMES P. GILLESPIE, as Executor, etc., Respondent.

Docket No. 45072. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

June 30, 1975. [599] COUNSEL

Clendening & Murray and James D. Murray for Appellant.

John A. MacDowell for Respondent.

OPINION

KINGSLEY, Acting P.J.

The wife appeals from portions of an interlocutory decree of dissolution determining the status, as community or separate property, of certain assets standing either in joint tenancy or in the name of the wife. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the portions of the decree appealed from.

[600] The husband and wife were in their late fifties at the time of their marriage. The parties met in September 1972, and within a week the husband proposed marriage and the wife, the appellant herein, accepted. The wife moved from her home into the home of the husband. Between September 1972 and the date of separation, the husband caused property to be purchased in his wife's name, alone, or caused his property to be transferred into joint tenancy. Irreconcilable differences arose and this action followed.

A trial was had and the court, pursuant to the wife's request, ordered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court awarded the wife a checking account at the Bank of America, Norwalk Branch, one of the savings accounts at Great Western Savings, Lakewood Branch (which had been held in joint tenancy by petitioner and her son), the household furnishings, a four-karat diamond ring gift, and the reimbursement of $836.25. The court found that a 1972 Oldsmobile was the sole and separate property of the husband; the real property was the separate property of the husband; a checking account at the Imperial Branch, Bank of America; two savings accounts at Great Western Savings & Loan Association, Lakewood Branch, were the separate property of the husband, and 375 shares of stock of Lucky Stores also were the separate property of the husband. The wife has appealed; we reverse.[1]