Bordin v. Bordin

WARNE, J. pro tem.

*

At the conclusion of the trial of this action findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived by both parties, whereupon an interlocutory decree of divorce was awarded to each of the parties. Defendant has appealed from the interlocutory judgment. The case comes to us solely upon the clerk’s record.

Although appellant appeals from the judgment and “the whole thereof, ’ ’ appellant accepts those parts of the judgment (1) awarding both parties a divorce, (2) awarding custody of the minor children, (3) providing for support, (4) awarding alimony to appellant, and (5) awarding counsel fees to both the appellant and respondent. Appellant’s only contentions on appeal are that the trial court erred in the interlocutory decree by ordering an immediate division of the community property and that the division ordered was unjust in that there was no equal division of the community property.

Appellant correctly contends that the portions of the interlocutory decree purporting to make an immediate disposition of property are erroneous.

(Gudelj

v.

Gudelj,

41 Cal.2d 202, 214 [259 P.2d 656]; citing

Dowd

v.

Dowd,

111 Cal.App.2d 760, 765 [245 P.2d 339] ;

Slavich

v.

Slavich,

108 Cal.App.2d 451, 457 [239 P.2d 100] ;

Wilson

v.

Wilson,

76 Cal.App.2d 119, 129 [172 P.2d 568].) However, the immediate disposition in such cases is not a jurisdictional defect. (See

Gudelj

v.

Gudelj, supra.)

It was proper for the trial court to determine in its interlocutory decree the status of the property and how it ought to be assigned upon entry of