midpage

Stevens v. StevensStevens v. Stevens

California Court of Appeal
Nov 19, 1954
Civ. 20187
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
McComb
McCOMB, J.

Plaintiff appeals from (1) a minute order entered September 18, 1953, (2) an order made September 22, 1953, and (3) an order made October 1, 1953. The orders appealed from ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‍(a) directed defendant to pay plaintiff for her support $250 a month, commencing September 20, 1953, and to pay her attorney $50 court costs and $500 attorney’s fees at the rate of $50 a month, the first payment to commence October 1, 1953, and (b) awarded plaintiff the exclusive use and occupancy of the family home, with the exception of a ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‍studio attached thereto. The studio was awarded to defendant who is a musical composer and uses it in the pursuit of his profession.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Was there substantial evidence to sustain the orders of the trial court and the findings of fact in support thereof f

Yes. The present appeal is upon the clerk’s transcript solely, without ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‍any record of the evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore it cannot be held on such a record that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the orders of the trial court and the findings in support thereof. The rule is established that in the absence of a record of the evidence received at the hearing it will be presumed that ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‍the trial court acted duly and regularly and received substantial evidence to support its findings. (Colbert v. Colbert, 28 Cal.2d 276, 281 [7] [169 P.2d 633]; Locke Paddon v. Locke Paddon, 194 Cal. 73, 81 [7] [227 P. 715]; Kellogg v. Kellogg, 170 Cal. 84, 85 [148 P. 518]; California Home etc. Assn. v. Hilborn, 115 Cal.App.2d 634, 638 [6] [252 P.2d 368].)

In view of the foregoing rule we must presume that evidence was introduced at the ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‍hearing which would justify the implied finding of the trial court to meet the requirements of Smith v. Smith, 49 Cal.App.2d 716 [122 P.2d 346], and Luitwieler v. Luitwieler, 57 Cal.App. 751 [207 P. 931].

Affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Fox, J., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Stevens v. Stevens
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Nov 19, 1954
Citations: 129 Cal. App. 2d 19; 276 P.2d 139; 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1556; Civ. 20187
Docket Number: Civ. 20187
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.
Log In