Supreme Court of California
16 Cal. 3d 583 (1976)
Harry (defendant) and Ima (plaintiff) Bouquet were married in 1941. The couple separated on March 2, 1969. Ima filed for divorce and dissolution of marital property on April 20, 1971. On March 4, 1972, California Family Code § 5118 was amended by the legislature. The amendment changed the prior law to provide that both spouses’ earnings during a term of separation are considered separate property. The earlier law stated that a wife’s earnings during separation were her separate property, but the husband’s earnings during separation were community property. Harry amended his response and asked the court to find that his earnings from March 2, 1969 forward were his separate property. The trial court rejected Harry’s request and instead found that Harry’s earnings from the date of the amendment forward were his separate property. Harry appealed the trial court’s ruling.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, J.)
What to do next…
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.
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 222,000 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.