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

Marriage of Heikes

California Supreme Court
899 P.2d 1349 (1995)


Facts

Norman Heikes (plaintiff) and Rose Heikes (defendant) were married when, in 1976, Norman conveyed two parcels of property to himself and Rose as joint tenants. In 1984, the California legislature enacted § 4800.2, which held that, upon divorce, a spouse must be reimbursed for his or her contribution of separate property to the purchase of community property, unless the right to reimbursement is waived in writing. In 1986, the legislature enacted § 4800.1, which provided that the provisions of § 4800.2 would apply to any divorce proceedings filed after January 1, 1984, regardless of when the contribution to community property had occurred, unless the right to reimbursement was waived in writing by the contributing party. In 1990, divorce proceedings between Norman and Rose began, and a judgment of divorce entered in 1992 held both the marital home and the lot to be community property. Days after judgment, In re Marriage of Hilke, 841 P.2d 891 (1992), was decided. Hilke held the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property retroactively applicable. In response, Norman moved for a new trial. Rose petitioned the California Supreme Court 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.

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 218,000 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.