Bono v. Clark
California Court of Appeal
128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31 (2002)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1960, John Bono and his brother purchased 97 acres of real property in Gilroy, California, for $12,500. The brothers divided the property so that John separately owned about 46.5 acres. In 1977, John married Virginia Bono (plaintiff). John and Virginia lived in a rundown trailer on his property, which, according to Virginia, was worth $50,000 at the time. During their 17-year marriage, the Bonos used the trailer as their residence. The Bonos made extensive improvements to the trailer, converting and adding rooms, so that the trailer grew from 600 square feet to 1,920 square feet in size. Virginia claimed that the cost of the improvements using community funds was at least $77,500. In 1994, the Bonos separated. In 1998, John died. In 2000, the executor of John’s estate, John Clark (plaintiff) sold John’s property for $555,000. Thereafter, Virginia sued Clark seeking a declaration of her community-property rights. A trial was held in which Virginia testified to facts supporting her entitlement to a pro tanto community interest in John’s property. The trial court decided as a matter of law that Virginia did not have a pro tanto community interest and, instead, that Virginia’s consent to the use of community funds to improve John’s separate property was a gift with no right of reimbursement. Virginia appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wunderlich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
