Washington v. Washington

91 Cal.App.2d 182 (1949) LULU BELLE WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v.

ALIOUS WASHINGTON, Appellant.

Civ. No. 16712. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Two.

Apr. 8, 1949. Porter & Ragland and Everette M. Porter for Appellant.

H. L. Richardson for Respondent. [183]

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a divorce action awarding a parcel of real property in Los Angeles County to her as her separate property, defendant appeals.

Facts

On August 6, 1947, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce from defendant on grounds of extreme cruelty. Thereafter defendant filed an answer and cross-complaint for divorce on the same grounds. Plaintiff by answer denied all material allegations of the cross-complaint. When the case was called for trial the trial judge suggested that they try first the question whether plaintiff was entitled to a divorce, stating, "If she gets a default divorce that won't deprive him of his rights to the property, we can try the divorce first and then hear the facts on the property." This procedure was followed and after evidence for both sides had been received the trial court granted an interlocutory decree of divorce to plaintiff and adjudged, "[A] that certain real property described as being in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California, known as Lot 35, Block 7 of Howes Tract, as per map recorded in Book 16, page 6 of Miscellaneous Records in the office of the Recorded of said County, is the separate property of the plaintiff, Lulu Belle Washington. [B] It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said plaintiff, Lulu Belle Washington, pay the defendant, Alious Washington, the sum of $500.00 on or before six (6) months after the making of this order, as and for his share of any community property that may have been accumulated by the parties hereto." (Italics added.)

Questions

[1] First: Was there substantial evidence to sustain the trial court's finding that the real property described in paragraph "A" of the decree was the separate property of plaintiff?