Simpson v. Simpson (1889) · DecisionDepot

Simpson v. Simpson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Aug 30, 1889 No. No. 13001Published

Before: Vanclief

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the divorce decree granted the wife an absolute, unconditional assignment of the homestead property, and that the language regarding support for the children did not create a legally enforceable trust.

Issues

What was the effect of the divorce decree upon the husband’s title to the homestead?
Did the divorce decree create a valid trust for the support of the wife and children regarding the homestead property?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The third paragraph of the divorce decree expresses an absolute, unconditional assignment of the homestead property to the wife”

“the court must be presumed to have intended to act within the scope of its authority, and not to exceed it.”

Synopsis

Divorce—Disposition oe Community Property—Homestead—Trust— Jurisdiction. —When, upon a decree of divorce in favor of the wife, for extreme cruelty and habitual drunkenness of the husband, the homestead property is awarded to the wife, and the decree declares that the property so awarded to her is to “be held by her in trust for her support, and for that of the children of the parties,” no definite or certain trust is created, but an absolute and unlimited estate in the homestead property is transferred to the wife. The court has no statutory power to create a trust in the homestead or community property by a divorce decree, but only to assign it to the innocent party absolutely or for a limited period.

Vanclief, C. Whilst the plaintiff and Rosanna Simpson were husband and wife they acquired title to the land described in the complaint by patent from the United States to plaintiff. Afterwards, whilst they, with their children, were residing upon the land, the wife executed, acknowledged, and recorded a declaration of homestead upon the land, the validity of which is not questioned. Thereafter the wife brought an action against the plaintiff herein for a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and habitual drunkenness, in which, on the tenth day of September, 1875, the district court rendered a judgment and decree without written findings other than recited in the decree, of which the following is a copy:—

[238]“In the district court of the fifth judicial district of the state of California, in and for the county of San Joaquin.

“'Roxanna Simpson, plaintiff, v. John K. Simpson, defendant.

“In this action, it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, from the evidence in the action, that the defendant herein has been guilty of extreme cruelty as charged in the complaint in this action, and that said defendant has been for two years last past an habitual drunkard,—

“It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the bonds of marriage between plaintiff and defendant be and they are hereby dissolved, and said parties are and each of them is hereby released from all of the obligation thereof.

“And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff in this action have and own and that she be entitled to the possession of the homestead and common property in the complaint described in this action, with the exception of three horses, their harness, and a wagon, and that said defendant have and own said horses, harness, and wagon as his separate property.

“It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the children of plaintiff and defendant be, until the further •order of this court, with the exception of their son John J. Simpson, awarded to the care and custody of plaintiff, and that the care and custody of their said son John J. Simpson, until the further order of this court, be awarded to said defendant.

“It is further ordered that said homestead property hereby awarded to plaintiff be held by her in trust for' her support and for that of the children of the parties to this action. , .

Related research

Another consideration tending to support the construction here given to the decree is, that the law did not authorize the court to assign the homestead or any equitable interest in it to the children, nor to the wife in trust for any purpose; and in the absence of a reasonably clear expression to the contrary, the court must be presumed to have intended to act within the scope of its authority, and not to exceed it. The authority of the court, in actions for divorce, to transfer the property of [242]either party to the other* or otherwise to dispose of it, is. purely statutory; and the,statute did.not- authorize the. court, to. create .a trust in the- homestead■. or community, property, but only to- assign it .directly,to .tifie innocent party, “absolutely, or for. a limited period.” If, any trust was created in this case by the divorce decree, it must have been a direct or express trust, created, not - by,the owner personally, nor by any agency authorized ;by. him, but by. the court acting by-authority of law; but it is. plain that the court had no- such statutory authority, and pur courts have no common-law authority, to create any kind of:trusts, certainly not express .trusts. In the exercise. of equity.jurisdiction, they find and adjudge trusts, to exist by reason of contracts, devises, bequests, gifts* or wrongful' or fraudulent acts, and may always- appoint trustees when necessary to execute- .them, but never, bycommpn-law authority, create them.. It should be further remarked in this-connection, that, as-,to the interest given to the wife, she could not be .trustee for-herself, it being a legal impossibility for a person to be both trustee and cestui que trust at the same time (Perry on-.Trusts,, sec. 13.)* and, moreover, that, it is at least doubtful whether an express trust, for the purpose claimed in this case, is authorized by our Civil - Code, sections 847' and 857; since it -is not expressed nor clearly -implied in. the divorce, decree that the rents and profits, only, of the-homestead property were to be applied to the use of the wife and children. Indeed, “ rents and profits” are not mentioned in the decree,

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief