Legal Opinion
Howard v. Howard
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 19, 1954No. Civ. 19712PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.
Defendant appeals from certain portions of an interlocutory decree of divorce granted to plaintiff.
Questions: First: Did the trial court err in finding that property known as 1134 San Ysidro Drive, Beverly Hills, California, was purchased by plaintiff with $45,000 which was a gift from defendant to her?
No. The trial court found as follows:
“That the following assets are the sole and separate property of the Plaintiff:
“2. That certain real property commonly known and designated as 1134 San Ysidro Drive, Beverly Hills, California, as more specifically described in the Conclusions of Law…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Berniker v. BernikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Wilder v. WilderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Heck v. HeckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Rogers v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Larson v. ThoresenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rosenthal v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Howard v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Price v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Howard v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Zinke v. ZinkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.