Legal Opinion

Mergendoller v. Mergendoller

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 20, 1936No. Civ. 10927PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

GOULD, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff and appellant complains that upon awarding her a decree of divorce from defendant the court limited her alimony allowance to a period of six months and set aside an automobile to her husband as his separate property.

An allowance for the support of a wife may be made for such period “as the court may deem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties”. (Civ. Code, sec. 139.) “Unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion, the higher court has no authority to interfere.” (Lamborn v. Lamborn, 80 Cal. App. 494 [251 Pac. 943, 945]; Duffey v. Duffey, 79 Cal.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lamborn v. LambornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  2. Gamache v. South School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Duffey v. DuffeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jones v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API