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

Marriage of Elfmont

Supreme Court of California
9 Cal. 4th 1026 (1995)


Facts

John (defendant) and Edie (plaintiff) Elfmont were married in 1975. John was employed as a physician during the marriage. In 1977, John purchased disability insurance coverage. John increased the disability coverage in 1980 and again in 1983. Subsequently, John purchased two additional disability insurance policies. All of the disability insurance plans were term insurance plans. As long as the policy premiums were paid on time, the policies automatically renewed. On May 1, 1987, John and Edie separated. Prior to the separation, all policy premiums for the disability insurance were paid using community funds. After separation, John paid the insurance premiums using John’s separate-property funds. In 1989, John became disabled and unable to continue his work as a physician. In 1990, John applied for the disability insurance benefits, and the benefits became payable. The trial court held that the initial disability insurance coverage and the increase purchased in 1980 were John’s separate property. The trial court determined that John intended for the coverage to replace John’s earnings. The trial court held that the coverage increase purchased in 1983 and the additional coverage purchased through additional policies were community property. The trial court determined that John intended for the additional coverage to be retirement income. John appealed the trial court’s ruling. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling. John petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.

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 (Werdegar, 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.

Concurrence (Baxter, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

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

Concurrence/Dissent (George, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

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

Dissent (Kennard, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

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 217,000 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.