Fisher v. Superior Court

6 Citing cases

  1. Gromeeko v. Gromeeko

    110 Cal.App.2d 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 13 times

    Here the marriage relationship admittedly existed at the time of, and continued for several weeks following, the filing by plaintiff of her divorce complaint in this state, and the chief defense offered by defendant to plaintiff's requests for relief is that he thereafter secured in another state a decree of divorce from her. It is our view that under such circumstances, and upon a proper showing otherwise, plaintiff should not be denied the payment from defendant of funds to enable her to properly prosecute an appeal from the judgment determining the fact and effect of the Nevada decree. ( Cf. Fisher v. Superior Court (1930), 110 Cal.App. 565, 567 [ 294 P. 445]; Stewart v. Stewart (1939), 32 Cal.App.2d 148, 150 [ 89 P.2d 404].) It is now the law of this state that it is only after such an appeal has been finally determined (or the judgment of a California trial court adjudicating such issue has become final) that the validity or lack thereof of the Nevada decree and its effect — and consequently the marital status and reciprocal obligations of the parties in this state — can be conclusively settled.

  2. See v. Superior Court

    55 Cal.2d 279 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 11 times

    It has also been granted where the wife sought a writ of mandate to have judgment entered for a deficiency in alimony payments ( Parker v. Parker, 22 Cal.App.2d 139, 141-142 [ 70 P.2d 1003]); and where the relief sought was vacation of the entire divorce decree. ( Grannis v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. 630, 632-633 [ 77 P. 647]; Fisher v. Superior Court, 110 Cal.App. 565, 566-567 [ 294 P. 445].) Since the present proceeding is also an attack on the divorce decree, temporary relief may likewise be granted under sections 137.2 and 137.3, and it is immaterial that the decree is attacked only with respect to its property provisions.

  3. Baldwin v. Baldwin

    28 Cal.2d 406 (Cal. 1946)   Cited 65 times
    In Baldwin, our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the wife "possessed sufficient means with which to support herself and was not entitled to an allowance for either temporary or permanent support from the separate estate of [the husband]."

    Here the marriage relationship admittedly existed at the time of, and continued for several weeks following, the filing by plaintiff of her divorce complaint in this state, and the chief defense offered by defendant to plaintiff's requests for relief is that he thereafter secured in another state a decree of divorce from her. It is our view that under such circumstances, and upon a proper showing otherwise, plaintiff should not be denied the payment from defendant of funds to enable her to properly prosecute an appeal from the judgment determining the fact and effect of the Nevada decree. ( Cf. Fisher v. Superior Court (1930), 110 Cal.App. 565, 567 [ 294 P. 445]; Stewart v. Stewart (1939), 32 Cal.App.2d 148, 150 [ 89 P.2d 404].) It is now the law of this state that it is only after such an appeal has been finally determined (or the judgment of a California trial court adjudicating such issue has become final) that the validity or lack thereof of the Nevada decree and its effect — and consequently the marital status and reciprocal obligations of the parties in this state — can be conclusively settled.

  4. Verdier v. Verdier

    162 Cal.App.2d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 3 times
    In Verdier v. Verdier, supra, 162 Cal.App.2d 325, the court held that the election referred to above would not have to be made until final judgment in the action.

    "After considering the record on this motion, the record in the entire case, including the aforementioned stipulation of the parties, the general law, and the law established on appeal for this particular case, the court has come to the following conclusions: [1] "According to the letter and policy of our law, a wife is entitled to pendente lite support, fees and costs (Civ. Code, §§ 137, 137.2, 137.3, 137.5) and, wherever it appears that there has been a ceremonial marriage followed by the assumption of marital relations, the wife is entitled by that fact alone to such pendente lite relief, even though there is an issue concerning, e.g. the validity of the marriage itself or the validity of an apparent intervening divorce ( Dietrich v. Dietrich, 41 Cal.2d 497 [ 261 P.2d 269]; Gromeeko v. Gromeeko, 110 Cal.App.2d 117 [ 242 P.2d 41]; Kopasz v. Kopasz, 34 Cal.2d 423 [ 210 P.2d 846]; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 28 Cal.2d 406 [ 170 P.2d 670]; Fisher v. Superior Court, 110 Cal.App. 565 [ 294 P. 445]) or an issue concerning the validity of an apparent property agreement which has released or limited the husband's duty of support. ( Locke Paddon v. Locke Paddon, 194 Cal. 73 [ 227 P. 715]; Vishner v. Vishner, 125 Cal.App.2d 667 [ 271 P.2d 68]; Spreckels v. Spreckels, 111 Cal.App.2d 529 [ 244 P.2d 917]; Steinmetz v. Steinmetz, 67 Cal.App. 195 [ 227 P. 713].)

  5. See v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    8 Cal. Rptr. 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    Cases cited by respondent, such as, Reeves v. Reeves, 34 Cal.2d 355, 361, 209 P.2d 937 and Colbert v. Colbert, 28 Cal.2d 276, 279, 169 P.2d 633, are also subject to the controlling influence of Hull. This is not to The case of Fisher v. Superior Court, 110 Cal.App. 565, 294 P. 445, becomes pertinent here. The husband obtained a default divorce on August 1, 1929.

  6. Fisher v. Superior Court

    110 Cal.App. 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)   Cited 1 times

    THOMPSON (IRA F.), J. This is a companion case to Fisher v. Superior Court (No. 7628), ante, p. 565 [ 294 P. 445], this day decided. [1] In this proceeding the petitioner seeks the writ of mandate compelling the respondent court to enter the final decree in the divorce action, which he alleges he demanded of that court after the expiration of one year from the date the interlocutory decree was entered.