Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Marriage of Mix

Supreme Court of California
536 P.2d 479 (1975)


Facts

Richard Mix and Esther Mix were married. While married, Esther owned income-producing real property and other assets. The couple opened a joint bank account and deposited their respective incomes into the account during the marriage. Esther’s income was significantly higher than Richard’s. Esther purchased additional property for investment purposes during the marriage, using funds from both the joint bank account containing comingled funds and other bank accounts containing Esther’s separate funds. The couple separated, and the trial court dissolved the marriage. During the dissolution proceeding, Esther claimed that the property she purchased during the marriage was her separate property. Esther introduced a finance schedule prepared by an accountant into evidence. The schedule listed the sources of Esther’s separate funds, the dates on which Esther purchased property during the marriage, the cost of the property, and the amount of Esther’s separate funds that remained after each purchase. The schedule demonstrated that Esther’s claimed separate-property purchases substantially matched her separate income in both time period and amount. Esther testified that the schedule was an accurate representation of her income and expenses. Richard argued that because there were no bank records accompanying most of the entries on the schedule, Esther could not overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property. The trial court found in favor of Esther, ordering that any property in her name or possession not specifically found to be community property was her separate property. Richard appealed.

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 (Sullivan, 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 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.