Marriage of Jaschke
California Court of Appeal
50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 658 (1996)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1988, Allen Jaschke (defendant) and Amina Jaschke (plaintiff) married. In February 1993 (all subsequent dates occurred in 1993), Allen overheard a telephone conversation between Amina and her supposed lover. Allen immediately moved out of the marital home and filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Not long thereafter, Allen moved back into the home, albeit in a separate bedroom. The couple apparently reconciled, and Allen purchased intimate apparel for Amina. On May 17, a default dissolution judgment was entered, but in early June, Amina moved to set aside the judgment. Meanwhile, on May 24, Allen purchased a large walnut orchard, which yielded profits. On October 1, the court set aside the previously entered judgment and dismissed the action. On December 7, Amina moved out of the home, and on December 15, she filed for divorce. The trial court concluded that Allen and Amina were separated between February and June, reconciled in June, and separated again in December. Further, the court found that pursuant to Family Code § 771, property acquired during the period of separation, including the walnut orchard, was separate property. Amina appealed, arguing that a temporary separation did not trigger application of § 771.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nicholson, J.)
What to do next…
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.