Bridges v. Bridges
| Decision Date | 19 May 1954 |
| Citation | 270 P.2d 69,125 Cal.App.2d 359 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BRIDGES v. BRIDGES. Civ. 8308. Sac. 6338. |
Bruce A. Werlhof, Red Bluff, for appellant.
J. Oscar Goldstein, P. M. Barceloux, & Burton J. Goldstein, Goldstein, Barceloux & Goldstein, Chico, for respondent.
Responsive to the pleadings the trial court made the following findings of fact: In February of 1946, plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant began living together as husband was wife and continued in that state until August of 1950. Respondent obtained a final decree of divorce from her former husband on February 16, 1948. Appellant had often promised her that he would marry her immediately after her divorce became final. She relied upon these promises and continued her relationship with appellant during all of the said period from the 16th of February, 1946, to August, 1950. A son was born to them December 13, 1948. During the entire period the parties worked together with the common purpose and design of accumulating property, money and other assets and they agreed verbally that they would do so and would pool their joint assets, work, labor and services. By virtue of their common efforts they acquired real property in Chico and in Redding and certain personal property. The value of the Chico real property was about $8,000 and the value of the Redding real property was about $7,500. When they began living together appellant had little financial means and the parties agreed that he would continue to work as a salesman, and that she would contribute her earnings and services for their mutual benefit. Appellant had never shared and had refused to share the earnings and accumulations which the two had acquired, although respondent had repeatedly asked for such division. Appellant had refused to support the child born to the couple, and had threatened, if she should attempt to secure any part of their property, to dispose of the same and leave the State to escape the jurisdiction of the State's courts. Respondent was a fitting and proper person to have the sole care and custody of the minor son of the parties. Defendant was ablebodied and gainfully employed and able to pay for the support of said child the sum of $50 per month. From February 16, 1946 to August, 1950, respondent had performed services for defendant, including all the duties of a housewife and that the reasonable value of such services exceeded or equaled the value of the Chico real property.
Judgment was entered whereby the court divided the property between the parties, assigning to respondent the Chico real property, with the furniture and equipment located in the residence, and to appellant the Redding real property and certain personal property. Respondent was given the custody of the minor son of the parties and appellant was ordered to pay to her for his support $50 per month. From that judgment this appeal is taken.
Appellant first contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the finding of the court that there was an agreement between the parties to combine their assets and earnings and acquire property for their mutual benefit. This contention cannot be sustained. The evidence throughout on almost every issue was conflicting. It consisted mostly of the testimony of the parties themselves. We must, of course, disregard conflicts and, doing so, the following appears in the record upon the matter of the agreement: Appellant was discharged from the armed services in January, 1946. Respondent and her husband were then living with his parents at Auburn, the husband having been injured and being unable to work. The couple had three children. Appellant visited them in Auburn. He had purchased a three-room house in Chico in 1943, upon which he had paid $300, plus $30 per month. He also was married and had three small children. He proposed that respondent come to Chico with her three children and take care of his house and the six children. It appears that the domestic relations of each were unhappy with their respective spouses and in the words of respondent: 'I was going to get my divorce and he was getting his divorce and then as soon as the divorce were final he was to marry me, and I was to take care of his children and he said, the very words he said, 'I will be a father to your children and you will be a mother to mine'.' She was then asked: 'Did you have any arrangement with him with respect to property or anything that was acquired during this relationship.' She answered: 'Everything was supposed to be 50-50.' It appears that for four and a half years respondent kept this bargain and it is a fair inference that her work and services thereunder were a material factor in the success the parties had in the accumulation of property. The record contains testimony as to many things the two did in the acquisition and improvement of property which afford fair inference that an agreement, such as that to which she testified, existed. It further appears that in August, 1950, he left her and married another woman; that he went with his wife to reside in the Redding property, leaving res...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marvin v. Marvin
...(1952) 39 Cal.2d 458, 460, 247 P.2d 19; Barlow v. Collins (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 274, 277, 333 P.2d 64 (dictum); Bridges v. Bridges (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 359, 362, 270 P.2d 69 (dictum)). A review of the numerous California decisions concerning contracts between nonmarital partners, however, ......
-
Warner v. Warner
...Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Gordon, 116 Cal.App.2d 681, 254 P.2d 644; Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 256 P.2d 712; Bridges v. Bridges, 125 Cal.App.2d 359, 270 P.2d 69; Cline v. Festersen, 128 Cal.App.2d 380, 275 P.2d 149; Shore v. Shore, Cal., 277 P.2d 4; 31 A.L.R.2d 1255, We conclude tha......
-
Taylor v. Fields
...at pp. 667-670, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106; see, e.g. Trutalli v. Meraviglia (1932) 215 Cal. 698, 12 P.2d 430; Bridges v. Bridges (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 359, 270 P.2d 69; Croslin v. Scott (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 767, 316 P.2d and to hold all property acquired during the relationship in ac......
-
Tyranski v. Piggins
...76 Idaho 399, 407, 283 P.2d 931, 935 (1955); Karoley v. Reid, 223 Ark. 737, 743, 269 S.W.2d 322, 326 (1954); Bridges v. Bridges, 125 Cal.App.2d 359, 363, 270 P.2d 69, 71 (1954).Cf. Sheneman v. Sheneman, 30 Mich.App. 1, 28, 186 N.W.2d 344 (1971); Stevenson v. Detroit, 42 Mich.App. 294, 299, ......