Ryan v. Souza
| Citation | 317 P.2d 655,155 Cal.App.2d 213 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1957 |
| Parties | P. W. RYAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ruth A. SOUZA, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 9224. |
Carl C. Kuchman, and Roy B. Hibbitt, Sacramento, for appellant.
Francis P. Walsh and Henry Gross, San Francisco, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment declaring a lien on certain property of appellant in the amount of a judgment recovered against her former husband after the entry of the final decree of divorce.
On February 13, 1951, appellant was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce which approved a property settlement agreement pursuant to the terms of which her husband had deeded to her his interest in the property herein involved. The final decree of divorce was entered on March 11, 1952. Thereafter, on November 7, 1952, judgment in favor of respondent in the amount of $6,381.99 was rendered against appellant's former husband in an action in which he was served by publication and the subject property attached. Thereafter, a writ of execution which was issued was returned nulla bona. Respondent brought the present action to have a lien declared on the subject property in the amount of the unpaid judgment. From the judgment granting the relief sought appellant has appealed.
It appears from the record that, during the marriage of appellant and her former husband, he owned and operated a store in Carmichael, California, known as Frank's Feed Store. The evidence shows that at the time of the interlocutory decree of divorce appellant's former husband owed the Ralston Purina Company $6,381.99 for merchandise purchased for the store. The amount of the obligation is the same as the amount of the judgment respondent recovered in the prior action. After that judgment was rendered Ralston Purina Company received $765.84 on the account and respondent's counsel stipulated in open court that respondent's judgment could be reduced by that amount. Counsel for appellant did not join in the stipulation. So far as the record shows he remained silent. In the instant case plaintiff alleges in his complaint that on April 6, 1951, the Ralston Purina Company, for a valuable consideration, assigned to him the indebtedness of Frank Souza, doing business as Frank's Feed Store, and that he is now the owner and holder thereof. The answer denies this allegation. The trial court found, among other things, that the allegation is true.
We have searched the record and fail to find any evidence to support the trial court's finding that respondent is the assignee of Ralston Purina Company's claim against appellant's former husband. Respondent did not appear at the trial and although two witnesses of the Ralston Purina Company were called and testified for respondent, neither said a word about an assignment of the Ralston Purina Company's claim to respondent. The fact that respondent brought action against app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Fonstein, In re
...242 Cal.App.2d 461, 478, 51 Cal.Rptr. 468; Greene v. Wilson (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 852, 856, 25 Cal.Rptr. 630; Ryan v. Souza (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 213, 215, 317 P.2d 655; Vest v. Superior Court (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 91, 95, 294 P.2d 988.) While the parties assumed that the partnership would ......
-
Spokane Merchants' Ass'n v. Olmstead
...Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Mantz, 4 Cal.2d 322, 49 P.2d 279; Vest v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.2d 91, 294 P.2d 988; Ryan v. Souza, 155 Cal.App.2d 213, 317 P.2d 655. Defendant also urges laches on the part of plaintiff in that having knowledge of the property settlement agreement and di......
-
In re Chenich, BAP No. SC-87-1920 VAMo
...in value in property beyond the equity of the community as of the date of entry of the final decree of divorce. Ryan v. Souza, 155 Cal.App.2d 213, 216, 317 P.2d 655 (1957). This included rents. Id. at 216, 317 P.2d 655. The practical difficulties of this approach led to legislative Communit......
-
Watters v. Doud, 46806-1
...the rule established in California. See, e. g., Harley v. Whitmore, 242 Cal.App.2d 461, 51 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1966); Ryan v. Souza, 155 Cal.App.2d 213, 317 P.2d 655 (1957). These California cases concluded that since all property becomes separate upon divorce, all net equity arising thereafter ......