Cohen v. Cohen
| Decision Date | 17 December 1957 |
| Citation | 156 Cal.App.2d 191,319 P.2d 66 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Blanche Louise COHEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Louis COHEN et al., Defendants. Louis Cohen, Appellants. Civ. 22502. |
Leo Shapiro, Beverly Hills, Roger Marchetti and Ben C. Cohen, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Max Tendler, Los Nageles, and Herbert B. Schlosberg, Beverly Hills, for respondent.
Blanche Louise Cohen and Louis Cohen were married December 9, 1944. They separated after they had lived together for two months more than ten years. They had no children.
Mrs. Cohen sued her husband for divorce, alleging grievous mental cruelty; he cross complained for divorce upon the same ground.
The trial judge found that each of them had inflicted grievous mental cruelty upon the other, and granted each of them a divorce. De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 250 P.2d 598.
The judge awarded the wife alimony at the rate of $125 a week for the first year, and after that $150 a week 'until her death or remarriage.' He awarded her attorney's fees in the amount of $6,000, and costs in the sum of $473.95; $600 to an appraiser; and $1,000 to a certified public accountant. The wife's attorney had theretofore been allowed $1,000 on the order to show cause. And the judge awarded the wife an old Chevrolet coupe which she had been using.
The wife does not appeal from the judgment.
The husband appeals from certain parts of it.
He is satisfied to have the divorce; but he doesn't want his wife to have alimony, counsel fees and costs as awarded, the appraiser's and accountant's fees, or the automobile.
He predicates his appeal upon the following issues:
1. That there is not substantial evidence to support the finding that he inflicted mental cruelty upon his wife.
2. That there is not sufficient corroborating evidence of her testimony.
3. That it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to allow his wife alimony, counsel fees and costs, and the appraiser's and accountant's fees. Finally he says that the superior court was without jurisdiction to transfer title to the automobile to his wife.
Tried by rules well settled in this state, this court finds that there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of cruelty inflicted upon the wife by the husband. There is no need to go into an extended discussion of all of the evidence in the case. Counsel have argued it extensively pro and con.
All that we have to do is to find any substantial evidence that will support the finding. And when two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts we may not substitute our deductions for those of the trial court. Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 694, 299 P.2d 231; Clewett v. Clewett, 136 Cal.App.2d 913, 915, 289 P.2d 512.
Mr. Cohen called his wife on long distance telephone while she was visiting relatives in Kansas City, and told her that he had decided to live alone. 'I'm going to look for an apartment Sunday.'
A relative of the wife in Kansas City was listening on an extension telephone when he told her he didn't want to live with her anymore. She testified to the conversation. She also testified that it upset Mrs. Cohen very much; that she was semihysterical, and had to be put to bed, where she remained for some time. Therefore, the corroborating evidence is sufficient to support the judgment.
The allowances for alimony, counsel fees, costs, and charges of the appraiser and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoner v. Stoner
...of accountant fees may be allowed under appropriate circumstances. See Estes v. Estes, 158 Cal.App.2d 94, 322 P.2d 238; Cohen v. Cohen, 156 Cal.App.2d 191, 319 P.2d 66; Low v. Low, 143 Cal.App.2d 650, 299 P.2d 1022; 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 577. In the case before us, the def......
-
Burns v. Burns
...have been destroyed, has no discretion to deny relief (Mueller v. Mueller, 44 Cal.2d 527, 282 P.2d 869 (1955); Cohen v. Cohen, 156 Cal.App.2d 191, 319 P.2d 66 (1957); Lawatch v. Lawatch, 161 Cal.App.2d 780, 327 P.2d 603 (1958); McClellan v. McClellan, 159 Cal.App.2d 225, 323 P.2d 811 (1958)......
-
Cardew v. Cardew
...Benam v. Benam, 178 Cal.App.2d 837, 840, 3 Cal.Rptr. 410; Lawatch v. Lawatch, 161 Cal.App.2d 780, 785, 327 P.2d 603; Cohen v. Cohen, 156 Cal.App.2d 191, 193, 319 P.2d 66). 'There can be no precise formula for determining when a cause of divorce shown against a plaintiff is to be considered ......
-
Woicik v. Woicik
...354; Gilmore v. Gilmore, 45 Cal.2d 142, 287 P.2d 769. See v. See, 64 Cal.2d 778, 51 Cal.Rptr. 888, 415 P.2d 776; Cohen v. Cohen, 156 Cal.App.2d 191, 319 P.2d 66). Here the parties were equally at fault. Each alleged and proved facts sufficient to sustain a cause of action for divorce under ......