*1 Dist., Twо. Jan. No. 17929. First Div. 1959.] [Civ. et Respondent, al., v. FONG WAN MAY, FONG HONG Appellants. *2 Ferriter, William Macey E. Richard E. and Czar S. Winters Appellants. for Toomajian, Suren Franklin C. Stark, Champlin Stark & Barrett, Jr., Respondent. Edward L. KAUFMAN, appeal P. J. an This is from a Superior of granting decree Court County, Alameda а respondent divorce to Helen Fong, Mrs. also known as Hong May. complaint Mrs. her filed grounds cruelty February requested extreme 1954, and custody of four children, support minor and maintenance equitable herself an children, award of attorneys proрerty, expense money. Appellant fees and Fong Wan, Fong Poy (hereafter also known as referred to as Fong), cross-complained answered and also for divorce grounds on the cruelty. By extreme court, order of the complaint supplemental Pong permitted to file
Mrs. Pong’s mar- first alleged the two adult sons Dr. community- held in trust certain Edward, riage, Richard and been transferred to Oakland, which had located Pong’s fraud them consideration without Amy, Edward, rights. of Richard and Gracina The wives their as defendants determine respectively, were also added party complaint supplemental further named as claims. Pong, McReynolds, an accountant for Dr. defendant, Leslie N. McReynolds named as trustee under alleged that had been a lien and Edward claimed a deed of trust which Richard Francisco, property, located in against certain given consideration that this of trust was without deed McReynolds party Pong’s rights. anot and in fraud of Mrs. appeal. to this Pong’s allegations, and Richard and Edward denied Mrs. sought quiet cross-complaint, title various Pong Pong a denial; answered with in their names. Mrs. any properties. interest in the After disclaimer days of facts and conclusions the court disposing to refrain from Richard and Edward law, ordered using of the rentals there- оf the Oakland *3 judgment interlocutory of an and decree from, and entered Pong. of favor Mrs. Pong, Edward, and their his sons Richard and wives Dr. appeal contending trial court failed therefrom, (1) that: the findings issues; all material the evidence is (2) to make support findings judgmеnt; the and the (3) insufficient community property in its determination of the court erred inequitable, arbitrary, and parties unjust, made an of the capricious and of such division sepa- parties September 27, 1925, were married on February During the mar- 18, 1954. course of thе rated on engaged Pong been in 25 to 30 businesses of riage, Dr. night including clubs restaurants in kinds, different Oakland, his own business as a Chinese Francisco and in both cities. These business ventures were herb doctor part community property to be a determined entirety Pong acquired in their to him. had also awarded Dr. holdings approximate gross of an value of real Pong, awarded to These Mrs. $1,350,000. subject outstanding liens in federal and state tax excess eight four marriage, the children of the $1,000,000. of Of Pong trial. cus- minors at the time of the received tody portion children. This is not by appellants. challenged delinquent
At the time of the trial,
$12,700
support
payments
and maintenance
for Mrs.
accounting
children and
fees in
$750
violation of a court
In
orders,
order.
further violation
court
did not
up
keеp
premium payments
on certain life insurance
policies.
clearly
At the
indicated that he had
no
complying
intention of
court order with which
sign
he
not agree,
support
did
refused
bonds for the
minor
his
children.
perusal
After
careful
of the voluminous
briefs,
record and
we conclude that
contentions are
devoid merit.
Bather, the trial
reaching
court is to be commended for
such
just
light
result in the
voluminous,
intricate and conflict-
ing evidence;
requiring
witnesses
abuse
interpreters;
Fong,
Fong’s repeated
and Dr.
assertions that he would
comply
not
with the court’s orders.
Appellants
findings
contend that
of the trial court were not
upon
all material
comply
issues
and did
with the
Findings by
pleadings
statute.
graphs
para
reference
pleadings
(Kalmus
adequate.
arе
v. Cedars of
Cal.App.2d
Lebanon
Hospital,
;
LaMar
872]
LaMar,
v.
authority
Faubion, 157,160 P. 89 [264 slight its required is the corroboration contested case (Jones Jones, v. sufficiency largely for the trial court. Cal.App.2d P.2d 52 juris that the trial court hаd no Appellants contend parcels located San of real to award diction community these Fong property, as as Francisco to Mrs. properties They rely Fong. separate property of were although ac testimony рroperties, Fong’s that these on Dr. separate bought $150,000 in funds quired were marriage. fact, since before the Fong held, which Dr. by testimony Fong, was contradicted Mrs. Fong’s Bank, and the given Central statements income tax returns which referred federal amended 1944 An purchased with funds. properties as may in nature of assets be agreement as to the parties’ on the income tax from statements returns. ferred Cal.App.2d Kenney ; v. (Heck Heck, 63 v. 110] Cal.App.2d Appel- Kenney, ’ presumption not sufficient to overcomе lants evidence was community property. section Code, Civil where See strong particularly in the case of a mar- presumption is (In Estate, Cal.2d riage long as this one. re Duncan’s if evidence is viewed 174].) Even 207 [70 might favorably, have been of assistancе records most disappeared. tracing been burned or funds had either is treated as property [10] If separate cannot he traced, commingled (Mueller Mueller, prepared rely instruments Appellants also on certain Fong’s direction, which estab- under signed Mrs. separate property. properties as his Francisco lish testimony Fong’s that she couldn’t read from Mrs. Aside ample signed, what she there is not know English and did finding that these instru- support the trial court’s evidence only for the convenience of and delivered were made ments management expedite prop- in order the husband understanding upon the oral erties, and any rights therein. relinquishing argue Appellants next that the Oakland partnership of or of Sons, the assets lien of the San Francisсo Edward, Richard and property of Richard and Edward. The properties was the that when the indicates evidence *5 States; Fong a citizen of the was not United acquired, Dr. To the effects of the Alien were. avoid and Edward Richard permit him Fong various to to devices Law, Dr. used Land acquire property. payments Fong some made down on Dr. persons, who then received properties as “loans” to the prop- repaid never the “loans.” Some of the record title but other, with the to the sons and understand- erties deeded Fong ing in and that the was held trust Dr. placed in his wanted. finan- be name whenever he Two would statements, 1934, one dated stated cial dated 1933 and one Fong held unrecorded deeds to some of the Dr. Oakland among properties. properties Included held under un- parcels deeds were two recorded deeded Richard Ed- minors, however, as At the trial, ward 1921 and 1923. parcels claimed these Richard and Edward under 1955 deeds Fong questioned from and Sons. When about the financial Fong trial, at the he statements Dr. stated lied on the state- usually advantage. ments and lied when it was his Fong Dr. became a citizen 1944. In partner- ship Fong was formed. Sons Four the San Francisco properties all properties twelve placed Oakland Fong rеcord in the name of partnership and Sons. While the Fong per records show that Dr. owned cent interest and Richard per and Edward cent each, the evidence indicates partnership simply that the was another through device which Fong properties Dr. titles held to the of which he remained the true owner. Neither Richard nor Edward 1945 owned they purported Oakland exchange the interest in the partnership, any money nor was of their properties. per own these invested in Their cent interests gifts Fong were not gifts to them. Mrs. never consented not, as the sons she did until the time of know relating of the various transactions properties, to the Oakland Fong’s or funds other businesses into went properties. Fong completely part- Oakland dominated the nershiр ; charge he wrote all checks and had of all of its money property. partnership He used the freely funds paid huge his own, allegedly no interest on sums borrowed partnership, paid from the no rent certain supposedly partnership. which were those of the partnership dissolved while this pursuant pending, plan action was of Fong’s rights. Richard Edward to defeat Mrs. Richard parcels and Edward received nine of real in parcel which like another Oakland and the balance due on exeсuted to them a also two others been sold. trust on three $273,678.10, deed of note secured on a were made properties. Francisco These transfers over, agreement divorce case Avas that after the verbal and Sons. to' Dr. property would be returned part- appraisal of the dissolution, audit or On there was no follow nership purport to did not assets. The dissolution explain the Appellants ori- partnership agreement. could not *6 Fong. Appellants’ charge against gin $273,678.10 of the discrepancy $100,000 in for could not account accountant partnership the records. of fraud clear that there is evidence From the above it is properly the trial distributed the court the community property and cancelled deed Fong as
to Mrs. find can we $273,678.10. Nor of trust in the amount of in the its discretion that trial court abused indication the of the distribution determination and P.2d (Crouch Crouch, v. [147 appellants’ There is no further contentions merit that all appellants properly plead- that defеndants; were not the ings put ownership properly in issue true did the equitable ownership properties; all of the that Richard and raising into not the defense of Edward “misled the ’’ statute of limitations. support conclude that the in the We finds record us. before
Judgment affirmed.
Draper, J., concurred. DOOLING, J. judgment. However, I concurin the I wish my agreeing cryptic to elaborate reason the someAvhat opinion authority in the that: “There is no statement position findings as to value are exact re- ’’ a quired in case like this one. only finding value is The as to reference first complaint complaint. paragraph In VII of that amended alleges plaintiff information and belief that the on property is in one million in value. The find- excess of dollars allegations paragraph ing thаt all of of this are true. is the allegation on belief is made information and the While finding allegation true. a is that this is This is sufficient find- alleged. ing the fact question presented by
The more difficult the fact that the finding court made no of the value awarded party. impоssible Thus either it determine proportion (by value) what of the the court party. awarded to either The wife obtained ground the decree of extreme
cruelty. She was thus entitled to receive more than one-half community property (Harrold Harrold, 77, v. 43 Cal.2d 489]) might and the court its discretion have community property all of the (Barham awarded Barham, to her v. 416, 33 Cal.2d 289]). appealing properly Were wife she complain could finding the absence of a respective value properties awarded to each it could not be determined that she fact received the more than one-half to which she is (Villafuerte Villafuerte, entitled. v. Cal.App.2d 466, 469 right husband, who is not entitled as any particular portion property, is position complain. in no such (Pope Pope, Cal.App. seq. 2d 353, 372 et petition rehearing A February 4, denied appellants’ petition for hearing by Supreme Court was denied March 1959.