Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Marriage of Anderson

Court of Appeal of California
28 Cal. App. 4th 873 (1994)


Facts

In May 1986, Elizabeth Andersen (plaintiff) filed a standard form petition for dissolution of marriage from Conrad Anderson (defendant). Elizabeth checked the box on the petition indicating that assets and obligations would be listed in the property declaration filed along with the petition. Elizabeth also checked the box requesting that the court determine the parties’ respective property rights. Elizabeth listed 10 items as community assets and listed several creditors as debts. Elizabeth did not list values for the assets or debts. Further, Elizabeth did not request the court to divide the property in any particular manner. In 1987, a default judgment was entered against Conrad. In 1988, Conrad moved to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied Conrad’s motion but ruled that the judgment gave Elizabeth more relief than Elizabeth originally requested in the petition. A new judgment was entered in 1989. In 1991, orders were filed that provided an in-kind division of the Andersons' community assets and liabilities. The court ordered Conrad to pay $9,916.50 as an equalizing payment to Elizabeth. In August 1991, Conrad moved to set aside the default judgment and the orders filed in 1991. The trial court denied Conrad’s motion. Conrad appealed.

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 (DiBiaso, 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 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.