McDaniel v. McDaniel

California Court of Appeal Oct 11, 1933 No. Docket No. 9010.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its authority to adjudicate property rights within an interlocutory divorce decree, correctly invalidated a fraudulent property settlement agreement, and properly classified property acquired during marriage as community property.

Issues

Whether it is proper practice to dispose of property rights in an interlocutory decree of divorce.
Whether the cross-complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support the rescission of a property settlement agreement.
Whether property acquired during marriage with joint earnings is community property despite being titled in the wife's name.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As to the properties involved it was quite the proper practice for the trial court to proceed and dispose of the issues that were made by the pleadings.”

“The trial court did not err in finding that the purported contract was invalid.”

“The mere fact that the title was taken in the name of the wife did not convert it into separate property.”

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to obtain a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty. In her complaint she alleged that there was no community property. The defendant filed an answer denying the allegations of cruelty and denying that there was no community property. He also filed a cross-complaint in which he asked for a divorce on the grounds of desertion and alleged that there was a large amount of community property which he specifically itemized. He further alleged that there was outstanding a document which purported to be a contract settling the property

[599]

rights of the parties; however, he alleged that it was invalid because it was obtained by the fraudulent acts of the plaintiff. The plaintiff answered the cross-complaint and all of the issues were tried. The trial court made full and complete findings in which, among other things, it found that the allegations of the complaint were untrue and that the allegations of the cross-complaint were true. From those portions of the interlocutory decree determining the property rights of the parties the plaintiff has appealed.

The controversy arises out of the following facts: The parties were married January 9, 1922. Both of them were industrious and frugal. Although they had very little property when they were married, they both went to work and accumulated very rapidly. On February 7, 1929, the plaintiff wilfully deserted the defendant. She went at once to an attorney and had him prepare the purported contract settling the property rights. That document specifically mentions each of the properties owned by the parties or either of them. The properties enumerated in the defendant’s cross-complaint are described in the same specific terms. After the contract had been prepared the plaintiff induced the defendant to go with her to the attorney’s office and sign the purported contract, which in brief awarded to the wife all of the property except a coupe automobile, which was awarded to the defendant. Further facts will be set forth as occasion requires.

The plaintiff contends that it is not proper practice to insert in an interlocutory decree of divorce passages disposing of the property rights. She cites

Remley

McDaniel v. McDaniel

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief