Gaeta v. Gaeta

California Court of Appeal

Gaeta v. Gaeta

226 P.2d 619, 102 Cal. App. 2d 87, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1272

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 30, 1951

DocketCiv. 18143

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 226 P.2d 619 (Gaeta v. Gaeta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gaeta v. Gaeta, 226 P.2d 619, 102 Cal. App. 2d 87, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

WILSON, J.

—Defendant was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce on her cross-complaint on the ground of cruelty. The community property of the parties was divided and awarded as follows: to defendant property which the court found to be of the value of $11,500, and to plaintiff a parcel valued at $20,000. Attorneys’ fees of both parties and court costs were ordered to be paid out of the remaining portion of the community property and the residuum divided equally between the parties. Defendant has appealed from those portions of the interlocutory judgment (1) awarding specific property to plaintiff, (2) directing the equal division between the parties of the community property remaining after the above stated division.

By the judgment not only did the wife contribute out of the community funds toward the payment of her own and *88 her husband’s attorneys’ fees and costs but she received far less than one half of what remained. When a divorce is granted on the ground of extreme cruelty the innocent party must be awarded more than one half of the community property and the failure of the court so to divide it is an abuse of discretion requiring a reversal. (Arnold v. Arnold, 76 Cal.App.2d 877, 883-5 [174 P.2d 674]; Falk v. Falk, 48 Cal.App.2d 762, 770 [120 P.2d 714].)

That portion of the judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to award defendant an amount in excess of one half of the community property, and in so doing to make allowance to her of the amount contributed by her out of her community interest toward the payment of attorneys’ fees for both parties.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied February 8, 1951, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 29, 1951. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., voted for a hearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILSON, J.

—Defendant was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce on her cross-complaint on the ground of cruelty. The community property of the parties was divided and awarded as follows: to defendant property which the court found to be of the value of $11,500, and to plaintiff a parcel valued at $20,000. Attorneys’ fees of both parties and court costs were ordered to be paid out of the remaining portion of the community property and the residuum divided equally between the parties. Defendant has appealed from those portions of the interlocutory judgment (1) awarding specific property to plaintiff, (2) directing the equal division between the parties of the community property remaining after the above stated division.

By the judgment not only did the wife contribute out of the community funds toward the payment of her own and *88 her husband’s attorneys’ fees and costs but she received far less than one half of what remained. When a divorce is granted on the ground of extreme cruelty the innocent party must be awarded more than one half of the community property and the failure of the court so to divide it is an abuse of discretion requiring a reversal. (Arnold v. Arnold, 76 Cal.App.2d 877, 883-5 [174 P.2d 674]; Falk v. Falk, 48 Cal.App.2d 762, 770 [120 P.2d 714].)

That portion of the judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to award defendant an amount in excess of one half of the community property, and in so doing to make allowance to her of the amount contributed by her out of her community interest toward the payment of attorneys’ fees for both parties.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied February 8, 1951, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 29, 1951. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., voted for a hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 P.2d 619, 102 Cal. App. 2d 87, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaeta-v-gaeta-calctapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack