Court Opinion

ID: 9855715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:29:42.349489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:25.757759
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J.
I concur in the judgment. However, I wish to elaborate my reason for agreeing with the someAvhat cryptic statement in the opinion that: “There is no authority for appellants’ position that exact findings as to value are required in a case like this one. ’ ’
The only finding as to value is by reference to the first amended complaint. In paragraph VII of that complaint plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the community property is in excess of one million dollars in value. The finding is that all of the allegations of this paragraph are true. While the allegation is made on information and belief the finding is that this allegation is true. This is a sufficient finding of the fact alleged.
*713The more difficult question is presented by the fact that the court made no finding of the value of the property awarded to either party. Thus it is impossible to determine from the findings what proportion (by value) of the property the court awarded to either party.
The wife obtained the decree on the ground of extreme cruelty. She was thus entitled to receive more than one-half of the community property (Harrold v. Harrold, 43 Cal.2d 77, 82 [271 P.2d 489]) and the court in its discretion might have awarded all of the community property to her (Barham v. Barham, 33 Cal.2d 416, 431 [202 P.2d 289]).
Were the wife appealing she could properly complain that in the absence of a finding of the value of the respective properties awarded to each it could not be determined that she in fact received the more than one-half to which she is entitled. (Villafuerte v. Villafuerte, 125 Cal.App.2d 466, 469 [270 P.2d 526].) The husband, who is not entitled as of right to any particular portion of the community property, is in no such position to complain. (Pope v. Pope, 102 Cal.App. 2d 353, 372 et seq. [227 P.2d 867].)
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 4, 1959, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 4, 1959.