Marriage of Stallworth
California Court of Appeal
192 Cal. App. 3d 742 (1987)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
William Stallworth (plaintiff) and Carol Stallworth (defendant) were married for almost 15 years and had one child, Robert. William made a good living. Carol was unemployed with a high-school degree. William filed for divorce. The Stallworths’ primary asset was a family home that was community property. The home had a high value and a low mortgage. At trial, evidence was presented that eight-year-old Robert was being treated by a psychiatrist, enrolled in special education, and attending special reading classes. Carol also testified that if she and Robert moved out of the family home, she would likely have difficulty affording a home in the same district. The trial court entered an order allowing Carol and Robert to continue living in the family home until either (1) Robert turned 18 or (2) Carol remarried or began living with a man. When one of these events occurred, the house would be sold, and the proceeds would be divided between Carol and William. In the meantime, Carol would pay the home’s mortgage and expenses. The trial court retained jurisdiction to change the order if the circumstances changed. William appealed, arguing the family house should be sold now so he could get his portion of the sale proceeds now.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)
Dissent (Haning, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.