Wickland v. Wickland
Before: Allen
Synopsis
Actions by Wipe fob, Divorce and for a Separate Decree Establishing Separate Property and Canceling Agreement—Appeal—Support op Findings.—Where the appeal in No. 1172 is from a judgment rendered for the wife in an action for divorce, and in No. 1173 is from a decree in a separate action by the wife to have it decreed that certain property standing in the name of the husband was the separate property of the wife, purchased with her separate funds, and that the title was secured in his name under an agreement without consideration, and obtained by threats and duress, it is held that the evidence in the record is amply sufficient to sustain the findings for the plaintiff in both cases, and to establish the righteousness of the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in each ease.
Td.—Mortgages by Husband upon Property—Compensation Properly Eepused.—Where the husband had no interest in the property, the fact that he placed mortgages thereon for much less than its value for the benefit of the family does not entitle him to compensation upon the decreeing of the property to belong to her subject thereto, there being no reasonable possibility that any deficiency judgment would be rendered thereon against him, and there being nothing due to him thereon as against the wife by reason of his putting the mortgages on her property.
Id.—Interlocutory Decree of Divorce to Wife—Allowance of Counsel Fees Unauthorized.—In an interlocutory decree of divorce granted to the wife, the court is not authorized to insert an allowance to her for attorneys’ fees.
[560]
ALLEN, P. J.
In both of these cases defendant appeals from the judgment rendered in plaintiff’s favor, and from an order in each case denying a new trial. The first action was one for divorce and decree as to the separate character of certain property; the second was one to have such property standing in the name of defendant declared to be the separate property of plaintiff, and for the cancellation of a certain written agreement theretofore entered into between the parties with reference to a conveyance of said property. By stipulation, both of these appeals are to be heard and determined upon a single bill of exceptions.
The court in the divorce case found in favor of plaintiff, and found that defendant had threatened to kill plaintiff, had accused her of infidelity, which last accusation the court finds to have been without reason or cause, and that he had thereby inflicted upon plaintiff grievous mental suffering. The court further found that all of the property owned by both parties on the twenty-fourth day of March, 1910, was the sole and separate property of plaintiff; that on said date the defendant procured the signature of plaintiff to an agreement to convey all of this property to defendant, without any consideration and by duress and threats, and the court rendered its interlocutory decree granting plaintiff a divorce, with $100 attorneys’ fees, and finding that all of the property described in that certain agreement appearing in the bill of exceptions was the separate property of plaintiff, and that defendant had no interest therein. The second action was an independent action to cancel a certain agreement set forth in the complaint, in which certain real and personal property was described, and for a judgment declaring all of the property therein described to be the separate property of plaintiff. Upon a trial of the action the court found that on the twenty-fourth day of March, 1910, defendant obtained plaintiff’s signature to an agreement, which was of record, without consideration and by means of threats that unless she would sign such agreement defendant would defame her character. The court further found that all of said property was purchased with funds which were the separate property and estate of plaintiff; that defendant had no interest therein, and rendered judgment accordingly, canceling the deed and agreement.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)