Crofoot v. Crofoot

• Decision Date: 09 May 1955
• Citation: 283 P.2d 283,132 Cal.App.2d 794
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ruth CROFOOT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. E. J. CROFOOT, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 8561.

Page 283

283 P.2d 283

132 Cal.App.2d 794

Ruth CROFOOT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. E. J. CROFOOT, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 8561.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

May 9, 1955.

Pierce & Brown, Sacramento, Kenny & Morris, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Devlin, Diepenbrock & Wulff, Sacramento, for respondent.

SCHOTTKY, Justice.

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendant, alleging four causes of action. The first alleged extreme cruelty; the second, adultery; the third, fraud in procuring a property settlement agreement; and the fourth, that the sum of $39,922.05 was loaned by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff prayed for separate maintenance, for a decree setting aside the property settlement, and for judgment for the amount of money loaned.

In his answer defendant admitted that he and plaintiff were married on September 19, 1947, but alleged that this marriage was dissolved on November 2, 1950, by a decree of divorce granted by a court in Juarez, Mexico, in a proceeding initiated therein on the same day by the plaintiff. Defendant also alleged that on the said day plaintiff telegraphed him as follows: 'Congratulations. You are now a free man including your name,' signing it Ruth Mayborn, her name previous to her marriage to defendant. Defendant also alleged that in reliance upon the Juarez decree and the telegram he married another woman on November 4, 1950, two days later. The allegations of cruelty and adultery were denied as were those of fraud in procurement of the property settlement agreement and the lending of money.

At the outset of the trial, by agreement of the parties, the court proceeded to consider the special defense of the bar raised by the Juarez decree. Evidence was received relative to that issue only and after the taking of such evidence had been concluded the record shows the following:

'Mr. Diepenbrock: Then I think perhaps we should argue the legal phases of the case as presented by the evidence now in.

'The Court: There is no further evidence or testimony to be taken on this single issue?

'Mr. Kenny: On the issue of existing matrimonial status--that's correct.

'Mr. Diepenbrock: It stands rested on that phase?

'Mr. Kenny: That's right. Mr. Pierce is suggesting that out of an excess of caution, that we have a second defense to fall back to, a second trench; that is to the defense--that is the question of fraud in the procurement of the Mexican divorce. But that, I think, is not what we are working on now. We are now going on the naked legal question of whether a Mexican divorce obtained at a time when both parties were domiciled within the State of California can be recognized by the courts of this state for any purpose. Mr. Pierce's suggestion, that comes under--We are dealing now with one (a) and that would be----

'The Court: That would be one (b).

'Mr. Pierce: We don't want to stipulate away our claim of the fraudulent inducement.

'The Court: The court will understand, as Mr. Kenny states, this is really issue one (a), and the (b) part would be the second trench, as he calls it, if you have to be driven out of the front lines.'

Thereafter, the court, without any further testimony being received relative to the two remaining causes of action which would not be determined by the ruling as to the validity of the Juarez divorce decree, and without any disposition of those two causes of action, made findings that plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife prior to November 2, 1950, and that they had separated prior to that date; that defendant is now a resident of Sacramento, California, and has been since September, 1949; that plaintiff lived in an apartment in Los Angeles, California, for a period of thirteen months prior to November 2, 1950; that she had previously lived in Santa Monica, California, and before that in Texas, and that she stayed in Florida for a month or two on occasions, and before coming to California she lived in Washington, D. C., where she had an apartment which she maintained until November, 1951; that on November 2, 1950, plaintiff went from Los Angeles, California, to Mexico where she remained for about thirty minutes, following which she returned to Los Angeles, California; and that while in Mexico plaintiff became party plaintiff in a suit for absolute divorce against defendant E. J. Crofoot. In its conclusions of law the court stated that it was unnecessary to adjudicate the validity of the Mexican divorce decree because as between plaintiff and defendant it had no lesser effect than would flow from a completely valid decree; and that plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the separate maintenance action and all other rights which flow from the marital status because the Mexican divorce decree has the same force and effect as though it were completely valid.

Judgment in the action was entered in accordance with said findings and conclusions, and plaintiff has appealed from said judgment.

In her briefs appellant argues that the Mexican divorce decree was invalid under the Uniform Divorce Recognition Law of 1949, Civ.Code, §§ 150.1-150.4, and that the trial court erred in holding the appellant was estopped from contesting the validity of said divorce decree. Respondent in reply argues that the judgment is supported both by the evidence and the law. Because, for the reasons hereinafter set forth, we have concluded that the judgment was premature and that the appeal must be dismissed, we shall not discuss the arguments set forth in the briefs.

The rule has long been well settled that there can be but one final judgment in an action. As was said in de Vally v. Kendall de Vally Operalogue Co., Ltd., 220 Cal. 742, at page 745, 32 P.2d 638, at page 639:

'Although the matter is not mentioned by counsel for either side, it appears that the court should not have given a judgment herein until the final disposition of the entire cause. The law contemplates but one final judgment in a cause. As stated in the case of Nolan v. Smith, 137 Cal. 360, 361, 70 P. 166, quoting from Stockton, etc., Works v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 577, 33 P. 633: 'There can be but one final judgment in an action, and that is one which, in effect, ends the suit in the court in which...