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

Marriage of Walgrath

Supreme Court of California
17 Cal. 4th 907 (1998)


Facts

Gilbert (defendant) and Gladys (plaintiff) Walgrath were married in January 1992. Prior to marriage, Gilbert owned a home in Lucerne, California. In June 1992, Gilbert deeded the Lucerne property to himself and Gladys as joint tenants. At this time, the Lucerne property had an equity value of $146,000 and a remaining loan balance of $82,000. Gladys contributed $20,000 of her separate property to reduce the loan balance on the Lucerne property. In 1993, the Walgraths refinanced the Lucerne property and borrowed against the equity value in the home. The loan proceeds were used as follows: $60,000 was paid on the Lucerne property loan principal, $62,000 was used to pay off a mortgage on property in Nevada, $40,500 was used to acquire and improve upon property in Utah, and $16,000 was deposited in a joint bank account. The trial court ruled that Gilbert and Gladys were entitled to reimbursement on a proportionate basis from the equity value of the Lucerne property. The trial court concluded that § 2640 of the California Family Code did not provide Gilbert with a reimbursement claim for his contributions to the Nevada and Utah properties. Gilbert appealed the trial court’s ruling, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Gilbert petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review, asserting that he was entitled to reimbursement for his separate-property contributions to the Nevada and Utah properties.

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 (Brown, 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.

Concurrence/Dissent (Baxter, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Kennard, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

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 175,000 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.