Stevens v. Stevens
PEG STEVENS, Appellant, v. LEITH STEVENS, Respondent
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marshall F. McComb (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — 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.
Cites, in this corpus
- California Home Extension Ass'n v. Hilborn Civ. 4488 · 1953-01-29
- Colbert v. Colbert L. A. 19225 · 1946-05-28
- Smith v. Smith Civ. 11998 · 1942-02-17
- Locke Paddon v. Locke Paddon S. F. No. 10921. · 1924-06-23
- Luitwieler v. Luitwieler Civ. No. 4231. · 1922-05-22
- Kellogg v. Kellogg L.A. No. 3461. · 1915-04-19
Cited by
- MIP v. Mercado CA2/4 B345709 · 2026-05-18
- Ramirez v. Cortes CA5 F087680 · 2024-11-26
- Sorensen v. Tran CA4/1 D077620 · 2021-07-08
- Finance Holding Co. v. Molina CA4/1 D067952 · 2016-05-19
- S.C. v. B.L. CA4/1 D068562 · 2016-04-06
- Nelson v. Abebe CA4/1 D068087 · 2016-02-18
- Baik v. Oyang America, Inc. CA2/7 B258284 · 2016-01-12
- Padilla v. Wells Fargo CA4/1 D067521 · 2016-01-05
- Silva v. Trilight Properties CA1/1 A142210 · 2015-06-25
- County of Alameda v. Mars CA1/1 A142290 · 2015-03-25
- Hernandez v. W.R. Thomas CA4/1 D064036 · 2015-01-08
- Marriage of Partida and Corpus CA4/1 D065111 · 2014-11-18
- Alfaro v. Grayton CA4/1 D063265 · 2013-12-10
- Nguyen v. City of San Diego CA4/1 D062613 · 2013-11-20
- Davis v. Davis Civ. No. 24878 · 1960-10-31
- Davis v. Davis Civ. No. 24878 · 1960-10-31
- Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. Civ. 6051 · 1960-04-25
- Galper v. Galper Civ. 22920 · 1958-07-29
- Watson v. Watson Civ. 5557 · 1958-05-29
- Hinman v. Hinman Civ. No. 5222 · 1955-12-12