Flores v. Arroyo

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtMcCOMB; GIBSON
Citation364 P.2d 263,56 Cal.2d 492,15 Cal.Rptr. 87
Decision Date15 August 1961
Parties, 364 P.2d 263 Anita P. FLORES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Esther G. ARROYO, Defendant and Respondent L. A. 26373.

Page 87

15 Cal.Rptr. 87
56 Cal.2d 492, 364 P.2d 263
Anita P. FLORES, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Esther G. ARROYO, Defendant and Respondent
L. A. 26373.
Supreme Court of California, In Bank.
Aug. 15, 1961.

[56 Cal.2d 493] Max Tendler and Gerald Friedman, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Wolver & Wolver and Eugene L. Wolver, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.

Page 88

[364 P.2d 264] McCOMB, Justice.

From a judgment of dismissal entered after the sustaining of defendant's general demurrer without leave to amend in an action to impose a trust and for an accounting, plaintiff appeals.

56 Cal.2d 494

Chronology

(1) On or about April 8, 1928, plaintiff married Frank G. Flores.

(2) November 25, 1953, plaintiff and Mr. Flores separated.

(3) October 25, 1956, plaintiff filed an action for divorce against Mr. Flores, being case No. D-511182. The parties entered into a property settlement agreement on or about October 12, 1956, and a supplement thereto November 1, 1956. The real property which is the subject of this action, allegedly purchased by Mr. Flores in 1955 in the name of defendant with community property funds belonging to him and plaintiff, was not covered by said property setllement agreement of supplement. At the trial of the divorce action the property settlement agreement and the supplement thereto were received in evidence, and they are a part of the clerk's transcript on this appeal.

(4) March 21, 1958, a final decree of divorce was entered in the divorce action filed by plaintiff against Frank G. Flores.

(5) Thereafter Frank G. Flores married defendant, Esther G. Arroyo, also known as Esther Arroyo Flores. Subsequent to such marriage defendant filed an action for divorce against Frank G. Flores, being action No. D-544500, and an interlocutory judgment of divorce, which has since become final, was entered therein in favor of defendant. Said judgment quieted the title of defendant, as against Mr. Flores, to the real property which is the subject of this action.

(6) March 17, 1959, plaintiff filed the present action against defendant, entitled an 'Action to Declare Trust in Real Property, and an Accounting.' Mr. Flores is not a party to the litigation.

Defendant demurred to the first amended complaint on three grounds: (a) Failure to state a cause of action; (b) res judicata arising from plaintiff's divorce action from Mr. Flores; and (c) res judicata arising from defendant's divorce action from Mr. Flores.

The trial court, taking judicial notice of the judgments in both of the prior divorce actions, sustained the demurrer, in general terms, without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal of the action.

These questions are presented for determination:

First. Did the complaint, as amended, state a cause of action against defendant?

Yes. It is part of a husband's fiduciary duties to account to the wife for the community property when the [56 Cal.2d 495] spouses are negotiating a property settlement agreement, and a breach of this duty deprives the wife of an opportunity to protect her rights in the concealed assets and warrants equitable relief from a judgment approving the agreement. (Vai v. Bank of America, 56 Cal.2d 329, 15 Cal.Rptr. 71; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 32 Cal.2d 13, 21(5), 193 P.2d 728; Dandini v. Dandini, 120 Cal.App.2d 211, 216(3), 260 P.2d 1033.)

The first amended complaint contained these allegations: That plaintiff and Frank G. Flores were married in 1928; that in 1953 Frank G. Flores and defendant 'conceived the plan,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 practice notes
  • Sosinsky v. Grant
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 1992
    ...of 'state' in Evidence Code § 220. So far as court records are concerned, subdivision (d) states existing law. Flores v. Arroyo, 56 Cal.2d 492, 15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263 (1961). While the provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 452 are broad enough to include court records, specific me......
  • Blough v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. E003250
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 19 Agosto 1988
    ...rights. (Wolfsen v. Hathaway (1948) 32 Cal.2d 632, 647 et seq. [198 P.2d 1] (overruled on another ground in Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497 [15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263] ); Roth v. Shell Oil Co. (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 676, 682 [8 Cal.Rptr. 514].)" (Id., at p. 462, 113 Cal.Rptr. ......
  • JSJ Ltd. P'ship v. Mehrban, No. B234236.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 Mayo 2012
    ...Civ. Proc., § 1908.5; Wolfsen v. Hathaway (1948) 32 Cal.2d 632, 638, 198 P.2d 1, overruled on other grounds in Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497, 15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263 [if prior judgment raised on demurrer may be judicially noticed]; Rodgers v. Sargent Controls & Aerospace ......
  • Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 15 Noviembre 1967
    ...facts properly pleaded. (Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 567--568, 25 Cal.Rptr. 441, 375 P.2d 289; Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497, 15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263; Hauger v. Gates (1954) 42 Cal.2d 752, 755, 269 P.2d 609.) However, it does not admit contentions, deduc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 cases
  • Sosinsky v. Grant
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 1992
    ...of 'state' in Evidence Code § 220. So far as court records are concerned, subdivision (d) states existing law. Flores v. Arroyo, 56 Cal.2d 492, 15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263 (1961). While the provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 452 are broad enough to include court records, specific me......
  • Blough v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. E003250
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 19 Agosto 1988
    ...rights. (Wolfsen v. Hathaway (1948) 32 Cal.2d 632, 647 et seq. [198 P.2d 1] (overruled on another ground in Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497 [15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263] ); Roth v. Shell Oil Co. (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 676, 682 [8 Cal.Rptr. 514].)" (Id., at p. 462, 113 Cal.Rptr. ......
  • JSJ Ltd. P'ship v. Mehrban, No. B234236.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 Mayo 2012
    ...Civ. Proc., § 1908.5; Wolfsen v. Hathaway (1948) 32 Cal.2d 632, 638, 198 P.2d 1, overruled on other grounds in Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497, 15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263 [if prior judgment raised on demurrer may be judicially noticed]; Rodgers v. Sargent Controls & Aerospace ......
  • Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 15 Noviembre 1967
    ...facts properly pleaded. (Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 567--568, 25 Cal.Rptr. 441, 375 P.2d 289; Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497, 15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263; Hauger v. Gates (1954) 42 Cal.2d 752, 755, 269 P.2d 609.) However, it does not admit contentions, deduc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT