Isom v. Slaughter

• Decision Date: 26 February 1962
• Docket Number: Nos. 25507-25509,s. 25507-25509
• Citation: 200 Cal.App.2d 700,19 Cal.Rptr. 541
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Wilma ISOM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert SLAUGHTER and Marguerite Slaughter, Defendants, Robert Slaughter, Appellant. Marguerite SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert M. SLAUGHTER, Wilma Isom, Defendants, Robert M. Slaughter, Appellant. Marguerite SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Robert M. SLAUGHTER, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 541

19 Cal.Rptr. 541

200 Cal.App.2d 700

Wilma ISOM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert SLAUGHTER and Marguerite Slaughter, Defendants, Robert Slaughter, Appellant.

Marguerite SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert M. SLAUGHTER, Wilma Isom, Defendants, Robert M. Slaughter, Appellant.

Marguerite SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Robert M. SLAUGHTER, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. 25507-25509.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Feb. 26, 1962.

Arthur D. Cohen, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Henry Galen, Los Angeles, for respondent.

FOURT, Justice.

This matter involves three separate appeals which by stipulation are consolidated. The cases involve a divorce proceeding, the transfer of certain real property and the determination as to who is entitled to such property.

In our case No. 25509 the record reveals that Marguerite Slaughter on June 17, 1959, filed a divorce action against Robert M. Slaughter. She alleged that the parties were married on November 26, 1933, and separated on August 26, 1953; that there was one adopted daughter and that there was community real property which she described (1276 East 55th Street, Los Angeles); and further that Robert had been guilty of extreme cruelty. She also alleged in effect that Robert was guilty of adultery, in that he had lived with Wilma Isom for several years. The plaintiff sought a divorce, the assignment of the community property to her, custody of the child and support and maintenance for herself and the child. In a pre-trial statement Robert admitted the marriage and the charge of adultery, and further admitted that he had fathered the children of Wilma Isom.

In an answer filed on September 14, 1959, Robert in effect denied that the real property in question was community property in character.

Prior to the filing of the answer Robert, on or about July 30, 1959, after he had been served with a copy of the divorce proceeding, made out a deed of his interest in the real property to Wilma Isom.

On August 10, 1959, Wilma Isom filed a complaint (our case No. 25507) wherein she set forth that she had loaned $1659.41 to Robert Slaughter and Marguerite Slaughter, and that such money was used to purchase materials and pay labor charges in the construction of the building on the East 55th Street property in Los Angeles. It was further alleged that the Slaughters promised Isom that in consideration of the loan they would give to her a proportionate interest in the real property in question, but that the now 'reputiate [sic]' and ignore the plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 1959, wherein Isom alleged that she delivered to Robert Slaughter money in the aggregate sum of $1659.41 '* * * to be safely held and kept for her and to be returned to her upon demand'; that the first part of said money was delivered to Robert on December 3, 1954, that a confidential relationship existed between Isom and Robert which grew out of the fact that Robert was the father of Isom's children and she thought she could trust him with the funds and could rely upon him; that at all times Robert had title to and was the owner of certain real property on East 55th Street in Los Angeles; that Robert wrongfully appropriated the funds for the purpose of buying materials and paying labor charges in the construction of the building upon the real property in question; that she demanded the return of the money which was refused; that Marguerite Slaughter claims an interest in the real property and Isom also claims an interest therein. A declaration of the rights of the parties was sought.

Marguerite Slaughter answered the amended complaint on November 10, 1959, in effect by setting forth that Robert was the father of the children of Wilma Isom born out of wedlock, that the property in question was the community property of Robert and Marguerite Slaughter, that their rights were being litigated in a divorce action filed by Marguerite Slaughter against Robert Slaughter, which was then and there pending. Further Marguerite asserted that Robert Slaughter had fraudulently conspired and schemed with Isom to the end that Marguerite would be deprived of her property; that the amended complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the cause was barred by section 339, subdivision (1), Code of Civil Procedure, denied certain of the other allegations of Isom and concluded with the prayer that Isom take nothing.

On February 5, 1960, Marguerite Slaughter brought an action against Robert M Slaughter and Wilma Isom (our case No. 25508), wherein she alleged among other things that she and Robert Slaughter were married on November 26, 1933, and were husband and wife; that she and Robert were the owners of the real property in question on East 55th Street in Los Angeles; that the property was the community property of herself and her husband; that she and her husband separated on August 26, 1953; that Isom was the mother of five children fathered by Robert, and that Robert and Isom lived together ostensibly as man and wife for several years; that the claims of Isom and Robert were fraudulent and without right; that a deed signed by Robert on July 30, 1959, purported to convey the property to Isom; that the property was the community property of Robert and Marguerite Slaughter and the deed was executed by Robert without consideration and without the knowledge or consent of Marguerite; that there was a divorce proceeding pending in which Marguerite was seeking the property and that therefore the claims of Isom and Robert were of no effect. Robert and Isom alleged in their answer to such complaint that the property in question was held by Marguerite Slaughter and Robert Slaughter as joint tenants.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived in writing. The judge however made certain findings and adjudged in effect that Marguerite should have a divorce from Robert; that she should have the custody of their adopted child with certain support and maintenance for the child and Marguerite; further it was adjudged that the real property was community property and the same was assigned to Marguerite. It was also adjudged that the judgment in the divorce case was res judicata in respect to the community property considerations in the other actions, all of which were tried at the same time.

It was understood at the consolidated trial of the three cases that evidence in each case could be considered in the remaining cases, and that the determination of whether the property was joint tenancy or community property in one case could be res judicata as to the other two cases.

The cause was heard on July 18, 1960, and judgment was filed on August 3, 1960, wherein it was ordered that the claims of Robert and Wilma Isom to the property were invalid, and that they had no rights therein; that by the deed Wilma Isom acquired no interest in the property and the title was quieted in Marguerite Slaughter. ¹

A notice of appeal was filed by Robert M. Slaughter to the effect that he appealed from the interlocutory decree of divorce (our case No. 25509).

A notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 1960, by Robert M. Slaughter in our case No. 25508 to the effect that he appealed from '* * * the interlocutory decree of divorce. * * *'

A notice of appeal (our case No. 25507) in form in part as follows: 'Take notice that the defendant ROBERT M. SLAUGHTER, hereby appeals from the interlocutory decree of divorce in the above entitled matter from the whole thereof, entered on August 5, 1960' and signed by 'Wilma Isom' was filed on August 16, 1960.

The three notices of appeal are practically identical, each indicating that the defendant Robert M. Slaughter is the only person appealing. In our cases numbered 25508 and 25509 Slaughter signed the notices of appeal himself. In the remaining case apparently Wilma Isom signed the notice, not as an appellant but as heretofore indicated. Counsel for Isom and Slaughter did not sign any of the notices of appeal. There is no showing that Wilma Isom is an attorney at law and there is no showing that she had any authority to sign a notice of appeal for Robert M. Slaughter. The signature of an unauthorized attorney is improper and wholly ineffectual on a notice of appeal (Edlund v. Los Altos Builders, 106 Cal.App.2d 350, 357, 235 P.2d 28). It would appear to be even more objectionable for an unauthorized layman to sign such a document for an appellant. There can be little if any doubt as to who the...