Buehler v. Buehler

McCOMB, J.

From an interlocutory judgment of divorce in favor of plaintiff granted on the grounds of extreme cruelty, defendant appeals.

It is conceded by defendant (appellant) that the evidence supporting the charges of cruelty was sufficient to warrant the granting of a divorce to plaintiff. Defendant urges however that there is no evidence to sustain the trial court’s findings:

[474]

1

“That the property described in Paragraph TV of the First Amended Complaint is the community property of the parties hereto.”

The foregoing finding is supported in accordance with the following rules of law and the evidence hereinafter set forth.

(D Where separate property is intermixed and commingled with community property to such an extent that the separate property cannot be properly segregated from the community property,' the commingled property is regarded as community property.

(Truelsen

v.

Nelson,

42 Cal. App.2d 750, 754 [109 P.2d 996] ;

Estate of Woods,

23 Cal. App.2d 187, 191 [72 P.2d 258] ;

Cline

v.

Cline,

4 Cal.App.2d 626, 629 [41 P.2d 588].)

(2) When separate and community property have been commingled the burden is on the party claiming part of the property as separate property to establish clearly its character as such.

(Truelsen

v.

Nelson, supra,

at p. 754

; Dimmick

v.