Legal Opinion

Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross

California Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1991No. S014984PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PANELLI, J.

We granted review to determine whether a security interest in community real property given by one spouse to secure attorney fees during a pending marital dissolution proceeding is valid under Civil Code *30section 5127.1 Resolution of this question requires that we clarify the general rules governing transfers2 by one spouse in violation of section 5127.3

We conclude that pursuant to section 5127, both spouses must consent to the transfer of community real property. Consequently, when a nonconsenting spouse, during the marriage, timely challenges a transfer made in violation of…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Moore v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. Mirkin v. WassermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Roberts v. City of PalmdaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001

56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API