Direct Capital Corp. v. Brooks
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtDuarte, J.
*1170Disregarding procedural asides raised by the parties, this appeal turns on the distinction between "necessaries of life" and "common necessaries of life" as those phrases are used in different parts of Family Code section 914,1 and which of the two governs when a person is or is not liable for a debt incurred by a spouse. Here, the trial court found that a debt incurred by an attorney-spouse for office computer equipment was for the necessaries of life for that particular marriage, in part because that spouse's law practice generated community property income. We shall uphold this finding.
In…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Farm Raised Salmon CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Collection Bureau of San Jose v. RumseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jones v. Sorenson, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Direct Capital Corporation v. Brooks CA3California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Jones v. SorensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018