Haldeman v. Superior Court In and For Sutter County
| Decision Date | 31 July 1962 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thomas HALDEMAN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF SUTTER, Respondent, Mary HALDEMAN, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 10560. |
Arthur S. Powell; Wilke, Fleury & Sapunor, Sacramento, for petitioner.
Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher, San Francisco, and James G. Changaris, Yuba City, for real party in interest.
This petition for a writ of mandamus arises under the following facts.
An interlocutory decree awarded the wife a divorce upon the grounds of extreme cruelty, denied her alimony, and made a distribution of the community property. The wife appealed and this court affirmed that portion of the decree granting the divorce, but reversed the portion denying her alimony and making a distribution of the community property. (202 A.C.A. 558, 21 Cal.Rptr. 75.) The cause was remanded to the superior court for a new trial on the issues as to which it was reversed. The judgment and decision of the court became final May 17, 1962. Thereafter the husband moved for entry of a final decree of divorce upon affidavits showing the lapsation of time, as required by Civil Code, section 132, and also showing the other usual conditions: lack of reconciliation, no cohabitation, and absence by default by the husband. The trial court denied the motion solely upon the ground that entry of a decree finally severing the marital relation must await the court's trial and determination of the issues as to which the case had been reversed, the court stating that otherwise it would lose jurisdiction to consider further and determine the question of alimony as it had been directed to do by this court. The husband has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus.
We have determined that entry of a decree finally severing the marital relationship will not deprive the court of further jurisdiction to determine the question of alimony (or any of the other issues remaining undetermined) and that the writ should issue.
In Harrold v. Harrold, 43 Cal.2d 77, 271 P.2d 489, the Supreme Court of this state determined that entry of a decree finally severing the marital relationship was proper, notwithstanding that issues relating to a division of the community estate had not been finally determined. Although the case did not involve alimony and the superior court's entry of the final decree of divorce had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Hansen
...discuss such portions. (See Haldeman v. Haldeman (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 498, 501, 509, 21 Cal.Rptr. 75, and same case at 206 Cal.App.2d 307, 23 Cal.Rptr. 895, recognizing right to final decree of divorce on remand; 1 Whitney v. Whitney (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 577, 580, 330 P.2d 947; and Di Gra......
-
Marriage of Stuart, In re
...Cal.App.2d 575, 581, 43 Cal.Rptr. 729; Haldeman v. Haldeman (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 498, 501, 21 Cal.Rptr. 75; Haldeman v. Superior Court (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 307, 23 Cal.Rptr. 895; Whitney v. Whitney (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 577, 580, 330 P.2d 947; and Witkin, op. cit., Appeal, § 425, p. 4391.......
-
Marriage of Fink, In re
...although conducive to partial adjudication, has long coexisted with the one judgment rule. (See, E.g., Haldeman v. Superior Court (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 307, 23 Cal.Rptr. 895.) In re Marriage of Stuart (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 834, 104 Cal.Rptr. 395, involved a special application of the partial......