Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

American Olean Tile Co. Inc. v. Schultze

Court of Appeal of California
169 Cal. App. 3d 359 (1985)


Facts

Horst and Irmgard Schultze (defendants) separated on April 1, 1980. Horst and Irmgard owned a company called H&S Tile during their marriage. After separation, Horst continued to run H&S Tile. On May 6, 1981, the Schultzes entered into a marital settlement agreement to divide the community estate. As part of the marital settlement agreement, Horst received H&S Tile as Horst’s separate property. On May 6, 1981, Horst also signed a promissory note to American Olean Tile Company (American) (plaintiff) for debts owed to American. The marital settlement agreement was incorporated into the judgment of dissolution of marriage filed on June 19, 1981. Horst did not make payments on the promissory note. On August 1, 1981, American filed a complaint against Horst for the debt owed. American obtained a default judgment against Horst for the debt on November 25, 1981. American was unable to locate Horst in order to collect on the judgment. American obtained a court order vacating the default judgment. American subsequently filed an amended complaint. American claimed that Irmgard’s former community property could be applied toward the amount owed on the promissory note because the note was incurred and executed during the Schultze’s marriage. The case went to trial in 1983, but Horst did not appear before the court. The trial court found that since Horst was dealing with his separate property, rather than community property, when Horst signed the promissory note, Horst was solely responsible for the debt. American appealed the trial court’s ruling.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.