FOX v. FOX

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Albert J. Fox, was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce from his wife, Marguerite Fox, on the grounds of her extreme cruelty. Despite this, the trial court ordered Albert to pay Marguerite $840. The wife had filed a cross-complaint alleging cruelty by the husband and claimed community property including a lot, an automobile, and household furniture with specified values. The court found the plaintiff's charges of cruelty true, held that the only community property was the furniture (deemed valueless), and determined the lot to be the husband's separate property. Nevertheless, the court ordered the husband to pay $840 to the wife as full satisfaction of all property rights, making this payment a lien on the husband's real property. The appeal focuses solely on the propriety of this monetary award.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The law does not authorize a court to compel a husband to pay from his separate property any sum to the wife when the divorce is granted on account of her fault.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Conard v. Conard, 5 Cal.App.2d 91, 41 P.2d 968	In divorce actions, only community property and the homestead may be awarded; separate property cannot be assigned or converted into payments to the other spouse.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that the trial court's order requiring payment from the husband's separate property was unauthorized and must be stricken.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Conard v. Conard, 5 Cal.App.2d 91, 41 P.2d 968

In divorce actions, only community property and the homestead may be awarded; separate property cannot be assigned or converted into payments to the other spouse.

The court relied on this precedent to hold that the trial court's order requiring payment from the husband's separate property was unauthorized and must be stricken.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the property involved and the legal limits on property division in divorce proceedings. It confirmed that the community property was limited to the household furniture, which was worthless, and that the lot was the husband’s separate property. The court emphasized the established legal principle that a spouse’s separate property cannot be assigned to the other spouse or converted into a monetary payment in lieu of property division. Since the $840 payment was ordered against the husband's separate property, the court found this to be in violation of the law. The court thus modified the judgment by removing the provision requiring the $840 payment, affirming the rest of the judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to modify and affirm the judgment by striking the provision ordering the husband to pay $840 to the wife from his separate property. The direct effect is that the wife cannot claim payment from the husband's separate property in this context. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court enforced existing principles limiting property awards to community property and the homestead in divorce cases.

ALBERT J. FOX, Appellant, v. MARGUERITE FOX, Respondent.

EDMONDS, J.

Although the plaintiff was awarded an interlocutory decree of divorce upon a complaint charging his wife with extreme cruelty, the court ordered him to pay her $840. His appeal, which is upon the judgment roll alone, concerns only this portion of the decree.

In the cross-complaint the wife alleged that her husband had committed acts constituting cruelty. By other allegations, she asserted that they have acquired, as their community property, a lot, an automobile and some household furniture valued at $2,000, $150, and $20, respectively. Upon trial, the court found that all of the plaintiff's charges concerning his wife are true and that the community property consists of the furniture, which is of no value. The lot was found to be the separate property of the husband, but the court ordered that the wife recover from him the sum of $840, "in full satisfaction and settlement of all property rights between the parties," and declared that the payment of this amount "is to be a lien upon the real property of the plaintiff."

The only point raised by the appellant is that the law does not authorize a court to require the husband to pay, from his separate property, any amount for the support of the wife when the divorce is granted by reason of her fault. However, it may be noted, the amount awarded to the wife was stated to be in satisfaction of her property rights and not for her support. Respondent has filed no brief in reply.

[1] In an action for divorce, only the community property and the homestead may be awarded; the court is not authorized to assign the separate property of one of the spouses to the other, nor to require one to pay to the other any amount in lieu of an assignment or division of it. ( Conard v. Conard, 5 Cal.App.2d 91 [ 41 P.2d 968].) The decree in the present case violates this rule and must be modified by striking therefrom the provisions relating to the payment of $840.

As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Gibson, C.J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Pullen, J., pro tem., concurred.