Blackburn v. Blackburn

California Court of Appeal May 12, 1958 No. Civ. 17807Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a negative pregnant in trial court findings does not automatically invalidate a judgment if the findings, when viewed as a whole, clearly reflect the court's intent. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of reimbursement for personal funds spent on family expenses absent a distinct agreement to repay and upheld the alimony award as a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Issues

Whether a negative pregnant in the trial court's findings renders the findings legally insufficient.
Whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that no agreement existed for the husband to repay the wife's personal expenditures.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the alimony award to $250 per month for four months.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the sufficiency of the findings turns upon the particular case and that there is no absolute rule regarding negatives pregnant, which at best is nothing more than a rule of construction.”

“Where the wife uses her separate funds in payment of family expenses, without any agreement or understanding as to repayment, she cannot require her husband to reimburse her.”

“A broad discretion is vested in the trial court in determining the amount of alimony.”

DRAPER, J.

After filing two actions, twice amending one, dismissing a portion of one, and obtaining an order consolidating the two actions, plaintiff went to trial upon complaints seeking divorce, separate maintenance, and recovery of three different sums of money alleged to be due to her from her husband. She was awarded an interlocutory decree of divorce, by which the court determined that there was no community property, directed defendant to pay community debts amounting to $5,403.04, and awarded plaintiff alimony at the rate of $250 per month for four months only, together with her attorney’s fees and costs. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant upon the three causes of action for money. Plaintiff appeals, seeking reversal only of the judgment in defendant’s favor on the fourth cause of action, and of the portion of the decree limiting alimony to $250 per month for four months.

The fourth count contained four paragraphs. The first incorporated by reference a number of paragraphs of the first count, that for separate maintenance. The second para

[303]

graph alleged that, immediately after the marriage of the parties, respondent asked appellant to spend “her own personal funds” for her personal needs and those of respondent, and agreed to repay her therefor. Paragraph 3 alleges that she spent $6,000, and paragraph 4 that he failed to repay any part of this amount. The trial court found that “the allegations of paragraphs I, II, III and IV . . . are untrue.”

Appellant points out that this finding, by reason of its denial only in the conjunctive, is phrased as a negative pregnant. To find it untrue that he promised to pay,

and

that she advanced,

and

that he failed to repay, is to leave open the implication that all but one of these facts are true. The use of “or” rather than “and” would make clear that each averment is found to be untrue. Appellant relies upon

Mardesich

Blackburn v. Blackburn

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief