Marriage of Walgrath
California Supreme Court
17 Cal. 4th 907 (1998)
- Written by Jacqueline (Hagan) Doyer, JD
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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Baxter, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.