Maloof v. Maloof

California Supreme Court Jun 26, 1917 No. L. A. No. 4023.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a new trial, holding that the trial court's failure to make specific findings on recriminatory allegations did not constitute a miscarriage of justice and that the denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to make findings on all material issues in a divorce action requires reversal.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The failure to find on an issue is not ground for reversal where the record discloses no evidence on which a finding favorable to the complaining party could properly have been made.”

“We are satisfied that the omission to find did not result in a “miscarriage of justice,” and the error must therefore be disregarded”

“A motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and the decision will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Earl Curtis Peck, Earl Rogers, Otto G. Kuklinski, and Charles Scholz, for Appellant.

SLOSS, J.

This is an action for divorce. The court gave judgment in favor of the husband, who was plaintiff. The defendant appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff sought a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, and his complaint specified a number of instances of violent and abusive conduct on the part of the defendant toward him. The court found in favor of these allegations, and it is conceded, .as in view of the record it needs must be, that the evidence amply sustains the findings in this regard. It was further alleged and found that plaintiff had given the defendant “no just cause or provocation” for any of her .acts of violeneé or cruelty. The appellant claims that this finding is without support. The claim is devoid of merit. Assuming that the issue thus tendered was material, the evidence certainly warranted the court in finding that the plaintiff had not been guilty of any conduct which could fairly be regarded as giving the defendant “just cause or provocation” for committing the acts charged and found against her.

In her answer the defendant, in addition to denying the charges of cruelty contained in the complaint, set up, by way of recrimination (Civ. Code, sec. 122), a cause of action for divorce in her favor. She alleged that the plaintiff had treated her “in an extremely cruel and inhuman manner,” and gave a number of instances of “the said cruel and inhuman treatment.” The court made findings with respect to each of these alleged occurrences. There was, however, no finding on the introductory allegation that the plaintiff had treated the defendant in an extremely cruel and inhuman manner, nor upon the-further (and necessary) averment that the specified acts inflicted upon defendant

[573]

“grievous bodily injury and [or] grievous mental suffering.” (See Civ. Code, sec. 94;

Smith

Smith,

124 Cal. 651, [57 Pac. 573].) It is contended that the decision is “against law” for failure to find upon material issues. But an examination of the findings which were made, and of the evidence, shows that the claim of error has more plausibility than substance. The failure to find on an issue is not ground for reversal where the record discloses no evidence on which a finding favorable to the complaining party could properly have been made.

Maloof v. Maloof

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief