Davis v. Lucas

ASHBURN, J.

Respondent John A. Davis, the surviving husband of Gladys B. Davis, sued Kathryn B. Lucas, individually and as executrix of Mrs. Davis’ will, for a judgment quieting in plaintiff title to certain real property which he alleged to be his separate estate. Judgment went in his favor and defendant appeals.

Appellant claims the property to have been community property in which she, as sole devisee of her mother’s will, is entitled to a one-half interest. Her main contention is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s finding that it was at all times plaintiff’s separate property. Her counsel makes numerous separate claims, all of which converge upon this one central issue. They are reflected in reporter’s transcripts comprising some 300 pages, and counsel for appellant devotes six pages of his opening brief to the discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence; most of that space is occupied by citations and quotations from cases announcing legal principles applicable to the facts as he asserts them to be. This method overlooks cardinal rules applicable to appellate review.

The appellate court starts with the presumption that the evidence sustains each finding of fact

(Gold

v.

Maxwell,

176 Cal.App.2d 213, 217 [1 Cal.Rptr. 226];

Cooper

v.

Cooper,

168 Cal.App.2d 326, 331 [335 P.2d 983]), and the burden rests upon appellant “to demonstrate that there is no substantial evidence to support the challenged findings.”

(Nichols

v.

Mitchell,

32 Cal.2d 598, 600 [197 P.2d 550]; see also

New

v.

New,

148 Cal.App.2d 372, 383 [306 P.2d 987];

Cooper

v.

Cooper, supra,