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

Marriage of Varner

Court of Appeals of California
63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 894 (1997)


Facts

Kim Varner (plaintiff) married Stephen Varner (defendant) when she was 15 years old and he was 24 years old. At the time that Kim filed for divorce, the parties had five children, and Kim was unemployed. A hearing on Kim's petition for divorce was held July 13, 1993. Prior to the hearing, Kim's attorney had withdrawn from representing her. Kim requested that the hearing be continued in order for her to secure new representation. The trial court denied Kim's request. At the hearing, Stephen, who was represented by counsel, testified that the business interests that he owned were essentially valueless. Counsel for Stephen advocated at the hearing that, based upon an otherwise equal division of community assets, if Kim kept the family home she would owe Stephen approximately $150,000 in order to equalize their division. Furthermore, if Kim would agree to an offered property settlement, she could keep the home, Stephen would keep his valueless businesses, and Kim would not be required to make any payment. The trial court stated that if the values testified to were accurate, that it would be in Kim's best interests to accept the deal. The hearing was continued for one week, at which time both Kim and Stephen signed the agreement that was entered, on July 20, 1993, as a stipulated judgment. On December 10, 1993, Kim became represented by new counsel, who filed a motion to set aside the judgment. Evidence presented at the trial court as to the motion to set aside the judgment included Kim's IQ testing score of 75 and substantial evidence that the business interests and properties that had been testified to by Stephen were actually appraised in a total excess of $3,000,000. The trial court denied Kim's motion to set aside the judgment, and Kim 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 (Ramirez, 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 219,000 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.