Marriage Of Jafeman

105 Cal. Rptr. 483 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married on May 13, 1951. They separated in October of 1968. There are no children. Both have been employed throughout the years of their marriage. W has been employed in the same job since 1953 and has contributed to a pension fund. At the time the parties were married H resided at 133 Hickory Lane in San Mateo. Mary lived across the street at 132 Hickory Lane. The residence at 133 Hickory Lane had been purchased by H and his former wife in 1942 for $6,500. Following his divorce from his first wife, H had the property put in his own name. At the time of this marriage, H owed $ 4,266.17 on the mortgage which existed on the property. Mary owed $3,701 on her residence. W examined records pertaining to the sale of homes on Hickory Lane in 1951. The highest price paid for a home during that year was $14,500. As the home at 132 Hickory Lane was identical to the home at 133 Hickory Lane, both were worth the same amount. H testified that the home at 133 Hickory Lane was worth $18,000 at the time the parties were married. He stated that his opinion was based on the fact that another home on the block had been sold for $17,500 during that year. H and W decided to live in H's house. H and W commingled their personal earnings and the rental income from the property located at 132 Hickory Lane. In July of 1966, W's parents occupied the residence at 132 Hickory Lane rent free. During the first 12 years of the marriage, W handled all of the family's finances. In 1962 after marital difficulties, W managed the family's finances, and each maintained separate savings accounts. H and W never had any conversations respecting the ownership of the residence located at 133 Hickory Lane. The principal and interest owing on the mortgage on 133 Hickory Lane, as well as all of the property taxes assessed against the property, were paid with money drawn from the commingled fund. During the first six months of the marriage, they added a bedroom and a bathroom to the residence at 133 Hickory Lane. They also constructed a garden house and installed raised flower beds, a tile patio, and a fence. These additions cost approximately $ 4,700. W contributed $ 3,000 towards this amount which she obtained by refinancing the loan at 132 Hickory Lane, thus raising the indebtedness on that home to $6,700. The indebtedness of $3,000 resulting from the refinancing was paid off with money drawn from the commingled funds. H and W used commingled money to redecorate and upgrade H’s home. They also used commingled money to improve and maintain W’s home as well. On October 15, 1968, W filed an action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The court found that the residence located at 133 Hickory Lane is community property; that during their marriage the parties intended the home to be owned as community property; that although the question of title to the property was never discussed. Both parties appealed. H contends that the court's finding that the residence at 133 Hickory Lane is community property is not supported by substantial evidence.