Marriage of Hardin

38 Cal. App. 4th 448 (1995)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marriage of Hardin

California Court of Appeal
38 Cal. App. 4th 448 (1995)

Facts

Victor Hardin (plaintiff) and Doris Hardin (defendant) married in 1961. On June 28, 1969, Victor permanently moved out of the marital residence. Victor and Doris agreed that their relationship remained the same in some ways after Victor moved out: their economic relationship remained the same; Victor continued to receive mail at the marital residence and indicated on various forms that he lived at the marital residence; Victor and Doris maintained close personal ties; Doris continued in her position in the family business; and Victor sent Doris many cards declaring his love for her, referring to himself as her husband, and promising that he would change his ways. In 1982, Victor and Doris asserted in bank documents that they were married and not separated. In 1983, Victor decided for the first time that he wanted to divorce Doris, and he began divorce proceedings. At trial, Doris argued that they separated in 1983 when Victor decided he wanted to divorce Doris. Victor argued that they separated on June 28, 1969, when he permanently moved out of the marital residence. The trial court created an objective standard to determine the separation date, deciding that the separation date was the date when society would consider Victor and Doris to have separated, based on the following facts: (1) Victor and Doris frequently argued before Victor permanently moved out of the marital residence, (2) Victor permanently moved out of the marital residence on June 28, 1969; (3) Victor and Doris did not resume physical relations or attend social events together; (4) Victor and Doris dated others; and (5) Doris filed three petitions for divorce, each alleging a separation date of June 28, 1969. The trial court determined based on facts one through five that the separation date was June 28, 1969. Doris appealed, arguing that the separation date was in 1983, the year Victor decided he wanted to divorce Doris.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sonenshine, J.)

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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership