Gilmore v. Gilmore
California Supreme Court
45 Cal. 2d 142, 287 P.2d 769 (1955)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Dixie Gilmore (plaintiff) and Don Gilmore (defendant) were married for six years. During the marriage, Don owned three automobile dealerships. The dealerships were staffed such that Don worked only part-time and often took long vacations away from the dealerships. Even so, Don received a substantial annual salary, and over the marriage his ownership interest increased in value from $182,010.46 to $786,045.52. Evidence showed that the value of automobile dealerships skyrocketed as sales of automobiles to the public proliferated. Thus, the increased value of Don’s ownership interest was due to his capital investment rather than to any effort he expended during marriage. Consequently, when Dixie and Don divorced, the trial court concluded that the value increase was Don’s separate property and was not divisible between the spouses. The trial court concluded that Don’s annual salary was community income but that, because the salary funds had been fully expended for community purposes during marriage, there was no community property at the time of divorce. Dixie appealed the trial court’s judgment, challenging, among other things, the trial court’s characterization of the value increase in Don’s ownership interest.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.