See v. See
California Supreme Court
415 P.2d 776 (1966)
- Written by Maggy Gregory, JD
Facts
Laurance See (plaintiff) and Elizabeth See (defendant) were married in 1941 and separated in 1962. Laurance was employed in the family business of See's Candies, Inc. (See’s Candies) and was president of See's Candy Shops, Inc. (See’s Candy Shops). Laurance had a personal account within See's Candies, into which Laurance's See's Candies salary of $60,000 was deposited and from which Laurance paid marital expenses. Laurance also had a separate account at another bank, which was comprised mostly of Laurance's separate property but supplemented by Laurance's $15,000 salary from See's Candy Shops. Laurance sometimes transferred funds from his separate security account to his personal account, which then paid marital expenses. As a result, both accounts were commingled with separate and community property over the course of the marriage. The trial court's order of divorce found that there was no community property at the time of separation, based on a finding that, over the course of the marriage, there had been more community expenses than community income. Elizabeth appealed the trial court's finding.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
