Williamson v. Williamson

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFILES; SHINN, P. J., and FORD
Citation21 Cal.Rptr. 164,203 Cal.App.2d 8
PartiesJeanne WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lyle WILLIAMSON, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 25543.
Decision Date26 April 1962

Page 164

21 Cal.Rptr. 164
203 Cal.App.2d 8
Jeanne WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Lyle WILLIAMSON, Defendant and Respondent.
Civ. 25543.
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
April 26, 1962.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1962.
Hearing Denied June 20, 1962.

Page 165

Guerin & Guerin and John J. Guerin, Los Angeles, for appellant.

David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, for respondent.

FILES, Justice.

This is plaintiff's appeal from a judgment granting her a divorce on the ground of cruelty and awarding to ner community property, child custody, child support and token alimony. She contends that she did not receive enough money or property.

The evidence is not in substantial conflict as to the financial circumstances of the parties at the time of the trial. Defendant is a Los Angeles policeman with a take-home pay of $171 every two weeks, after deducton of $51 applied toward liquidation of the $2,241 then owed to the police credit union. During recent years defendant's gross income has been between $7,000 and $8,000 per year, including earnings from [203 Cal.App.2d 9] outside jobs. He is not working much in outside jobs now because his medical record is unsatisfactory and the department has limited him to four hours per week outside work. The community property consists of two old automobiles worth $500, household furnishings worth $2,000, and a home valued between $16,000 and $20,000 against which about $7,000 is owed. Plaintiff is a housewife. There are four children, the eldest of which, age 17, earned about $1,100 in 1959.

At the conclusion of the trial the court announced that the property would be divided as follows: plaintiff would receive the home, the furnishings, and the 1951 automobile; defendant would receive the 1937 Ford. The parties were ordered to join in obtaining a loan on the property, from which $2,700 would be paid to defendant and from which he was to pay off the debt to the credit union. (Defendant had another debt of $350 for which the community property was liable.) In the event of a sale of the home defendant would receive $2,000 from the proceeds. Defendant was ordered to pay to plaintiff as child support $11 per child per week, to keep up the insurance, to pay one-half of extraordinary medical expenses, to pay token alimony of $1.00 per year, and to pay plaintiff's attorney $80 at the rate of $20 per month.

Before any formal findings or judgment were filed plaintiff substituted new counsel, who made a motion to reopen. The purpose was to show that defendant had contributed community money to the fire and police pension fund of Los Angeles, and that he had an interest in that fund which was community property. When the motion was argued it was stipulated that $3,694.79 had been deducted from defendant's salary and placed in the pension fund during his 13 years as a policeman. The motion to reopen generally was denied.

Thereafter the court gave judgment in conformity with its prior announcement except that the amount to be paid to defendant upon sale of the house was reduced from $2,000 to $1,000.

Plaintiff's contention is that she has received less than one-half of the community property, and that the trial court should have reopened the evidence so as to allow

Page 166

plaintiff to call an actuary who would testify that the present value of defendant's pension, if he retired after 20 years' service, was $34,054.

[203 Cal.App.2d 10] The terms of the Los Angeles police pension system are set forth in Article XVII of the Los Angeles City Charter, of which the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Smith v. Lewis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 20, 1975
    ...775, 112 P.2d 235; Cheney v. City & County of San Francisco (1936) 7 Cal.2d 565, 61 P.2d 754; Williamson v. Williamson (1962) supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164; Estate of Manley (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 641, 337 P.2d 487; Estate of Perryman (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 1, 283 P.2d 298; Crossa......
  • Marriage of Brown, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 16, 1976
    ...an expectancy which is not subject to division as community property.' (Ibid.) In 1962 the Court of Appeal in Williamson v. Williamson, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164, explained the French rule, asserting that 'To the extent that payment is, at the time of the divorce, subject to condit......
  • Whitfield v. Whitfield
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • December 18, 1987
    ...pension as a "mere expectancy." See White v. White, supra. 136 N.J.Super. at 554, 347 A.2d 360, citing Williamson v. Williamson, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 11, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164, 167 (1962). In fact, a nonvested pension is a far cry from an entirely speculative "mere expectancy," the nature of which ......
  • Marriage of Karlin, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 1972
    ...3 Cal.3d 32, 40--41, 89 Cal.Rptr. 61, 473 P.2d 765; French v. French, 17 Cal.2d 775, 778, 112 P.2d 235; Williamson v. Williamson, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 11, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164.) When, however, a party possesses an unconditional and vested right to a pension or retirement pay, such a matured Page 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Smith v. Lewis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 20, 1975
    ...775, 112 P.2d 235; Cheney v. City & County of San Francisco (1936) 7 Cal.2d 565, 61 P.2d 754; Williamson v. Williamson (1962) supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164; Estate of Manley (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 641, 337 P.2d 487; Estate of Perryman (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 1, 283 P.2d 298; Crossa......
  • Marriage of Brown, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 16, 1976
    ...an expectancy which is not subject to division as community property.' (Ibid.) In 1962 the Court of Appeal in Williamson v. Williamson, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164, explained the French rule, asserting that 'To the extent that payment is, at the time of the divorce, subject to condit......
  • Whitfield v. Whitfield
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • December 18, 1987
    ...pension as a "mere expectancy." See White v. White, supra. 136 N.J.Super. at 554, 347 A.2d 360, citing Williamson v. Williamson, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 11, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164, 167 (1962). In fact, a nonvested pension is a far cry from an entirely speculative "mere expectancy," the nature of which ......
  • Marriage of Karlin, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 1972
    ...3 Cal.3d 32, 40--41, 89 Cal.Rptr. 61, 473 P.2d 765; French v. French, 17 Cal.2d 775, 778, 112 P.2d 235; Williamson v. Williamson, 203 Cal.App.2d 8, 11, 21 Cal.Rptr. 164.) When, however, a party possesses an unconditional and vested right to a pension or retirement pay, such a matured Page 2......
  • 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