41 California opinions name it 3 courts 1873–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Christ v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2025The court was entitled to reject the entirety of Husband’s testimony. “[T]he trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted, if it determines that he testified falsely as to some matters covered by his testimony.” (Halagan v. Ohanesian (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 14, 21 ; accord Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440, 455 .) The court did not err in rejecting Husband’s claim of reimbursement for cash purportedly spent on home improvements. 2019There is no evidence that [Husband] has ever paid any amounts to repay or service those loans." In response to Husband's objection to the court's credibility finding, the court correctly stated the law on this issue. "[T]he trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted, if it determines that he testified falsely as to some matters covered by his testimony ( Nelson v. Black [ (1954) ], 43 Cal.2d 612 , 275 P.2d 473 )." ( Halagan v. Ohanesian (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 14 , 21, 64 Cal.Rptr. 792 ; accord Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440 , | 3 | 3 |
Fields v. Michaelgreen2 sentences1962(Fields v. Michael (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 443, 448 [ 205 P.2d 402 ].) We are of the opinion that the right to so avoid a transfer of community personal property made by the husband in violation of the statute is, however, personal to the wife, intended solely for her benefit and her protection (Italian American Bank v. Canepa (1921) 52 Cal.App. 619, 621 [ 199 P. 55 ] ; Pomper v. Behnke (1929) 97 Cal.App. 628, 638 [ 276 P. 122 ] ; Blethen v. Pacific Mut. 1962(Fields v. Michael (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 443, 448 [ 205 P.2d 402 ].) We are of the opinion that the right to so avoid a transfer of community personal property made by the husband in violation of the statute is, however, personal to the wife, intended solely for her benefit and her protection (Italian American Bank v. Canepa (1921) 52 Cal.App. 619, 621 [ 199 P. 55 ] ; Pomper v. Behnke (1929) 97 Cal.App. 628, 638 [ 276 P. 122 ] ; Blethen v. Pacific Mut. | 2 | 2 |
Vai v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'ngreen2 sentences1975We assume that the wife is claiming a violation by the husband of the principle that a husband holding the community property is regarded as a fiduciary for his wife and, as such, may be held to account for his stewardship of community assets, even after the interlocutory judgment (Vai v. Bank of America (1961) 56 Cal.2d 329 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 364 P.2d 247 ]), and that the provision in the interlocutory judgment relating to the transfer by husband to wife of the corporate note in question contains language which could be interpreted as a guarantee of payment of an amount equal to that due on 1975We assume that the wife is claiming a violation by the husband of the principle that a husband holding the community property is regarded as a fiduciary for his wife and, as such, may be held to account for his stewardship of community assets, even after the interlocutory judgment (Vai v. Bank of America (1961) 56 Cal.2d 329 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 364 P.2d 247 ]), and that the provision in the interlocutory judgment relating to the transfer by husband to wife of the corporate note in question contains language which could be interpreted as a guarantee of payment of an amount equal to that due on | 1 | 2 |
Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.green1 sentence2025“Reviewing courts generally do not take judicial notice of evidence not presented to the trial court.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 .) DISPOSITION The portion of the judgment denying Husband’s claim for reimbursement of $28,000 for the downpayment on the Anaheim property is reversed, and the family court is instructed on remand to revise the judgment to reflect that Husband is entitled to be reimbursed in that amount prior to division of the proceeds from the sale of the Anaheim property. | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. First Student, Inc.green1 sentence2025(Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 277 [a judgment is presumed correct; appellant bears the burden of overcoming that 5 Based on a fair rental value of $3,400 a month, or $114 per day, testified to by Husband, the trial court concluded the offset would be $31,293. 17 presumption with cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record].) Finally, the family court’s decision to deny Husband’s claim for the cost of repairing damages to the Anaheim property was based on its credibility findings, which we do not reweigh and which are supported by subst | 1 | 1 |
Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co.green1 sentence2024(Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1356 [substance controls over labels and captions].) “An order denying a new trial is not directly appealable, but is reviewable on appeal from the underlying judgment.” (Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 37, fn. 1 .) The family court signed the underlying child support modification order on March 16, 2022. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Wells Fargo Bankgreen1 sentence2024(Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1356 [substance controls over labels and captions].) “An order denying a new trial is not directly appealable, but is reviewable on appeal from the underlying judgment.” (Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 37, fn. 1 .) The family court signed the underlying child support modification order on March 16, 2022. | 1 | 1 |
Lona v. Citibank, N.A.green1 sentence2024As appellant, husband is required to “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record.” (Rule 8.204(a)(2)(C), italics added.) “Factual matters that are not part of the appellate record will not be considered on appeal and such matters should not be referred to in the briefs.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 102 (Lona).) We will therefore disregard extraneous matters outside the record that are referenced in husband’s brief. | 1 | 1 |
Goodwine v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021(Goodwine v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 63 Cal.2d 481, 484 (Goodwine) [on its own motion, court must dismiss action if there is no subject matter jurisdiction].) The defendant may also challenge subject matter jurisdiction by making a motion to strike, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or a motion for summary judgment. ( Greener, supra, at p. 1036 ) Husband’s challenge of subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA did not constitute a general appearance. 2021Where, as here, a defendant challenges the court’s personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction is not deemed to constitute a general appearance. ( Goodwine, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 484-485.) “[A] challenge to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court is not inconsistent with a challenge to personal jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Finkgreen1 sentence2021Wife also argues Husband’s challenge to the sufficiency of her evidence failed to “ ‘summarize the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Where a party presents only facts and inferences favorable to his or her position, ‘the contention that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence may be deemed waived.’ ” (Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738 , italics omitted; see In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887 [appellant “cite[d] only evidence favorable to his position, ign | 1 | 1 |
Air MacHine Com SRL v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021(Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 414, 425 (Air Machine).) But the filing of a motion to strike does not constitute an appearance if the defendant simultaneously makes or, as here, previously made a motion “[t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (§ 418.10, subds. (a)(1), (e)(1); Air Machine, supra, at p. 426.) Husband’s motion to quash was based on two grounds: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his person, and (2) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to custody of the c 2021(Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 414, 425 (Air Machine).) But the filing of a motion to strike does not constitute an appearance if the defendant simultaneously makes or, as here, previously made a motion “[t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (§ 418.10, subds. (a)(1), (e)(1); Air Machine, supra, at p. 426.) Husband’s motion to quash was based on two grounds: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his person, and (2) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to custody of the c | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Marriage of Coronagreen | 1 | 1 |
| GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. Burmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shadonna C.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Candelariogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Foxgate Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bramalea California, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Fair v. Bakhtiarigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cabral v. Martinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration & Naturalization Servicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Marriage of Sheltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walker v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| County of Sacramento v. Lacknergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Swain v. Swaingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Britton v. Hammellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rottman v. Rottmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ballinger v. Ballingergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pomper v. Behnkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Italian American Bank v. Canepagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roseberry v. Edward F. Niehaus & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Halagan v. Ohanesian
green
2 sentences2025The court was entitled to reject the entirety of Husband’s testimony. “[T]he trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted, if it determines that he testified falsely as to some matters covered by his testimony.” (Halagan v. Ohanesian (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 14, 21 ; accord Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440, 455 .) The court did not err in rejecting Husband’s claim of reimbursement for cash purportedly spent on home improvements. 2019There is no evidence that [Husband] has ever paid any amounts to repay or service those loans." In response to Husband's objection to the court's credibility finding, the court correctly stated the law on this issue. "[T]he trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted, if it determines that he testified falsely as to some matters covered by his testimony ( Nelson v. Black [ (1954) ], 43 Cal.2d 612 , 275 P.2d 473 )." ( Halagan v. Ohanesian (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 14 , 21, 64 Cal.Rptr. 792 ; accord Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440 , | 3 | 2019–2025 |
Walrath v. Walrath
green
2 sentences2021(Walrath, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 920 .) Similarly, the fact that separate and community property interests have been commingled in an asset does not defeat a reimbursement claim, if the separate property interest “can be traced to its separate property source.” (Cochran, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1057 .) We understand the trial court’s statement that Duerkson “did not adequately unravel” the separate and community property interests in Windsor Way to be a factual finding that Husband did not 16 adequately trace his separate property contributions from Cebolla and Kazan to Windsor Way. 2021(Walrath, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 920 .) Similarly, the fact that separate and community property interests have been commingled in an asset does not defeat a reimbursement claim, if the separate property interest “can be traced to its separate property source.” (Cochran, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1057 .) We understand the trial court’s statement that Duerkson “did not adequately unravel” the separate and community property interests in Windsor Way to be a factual finding that Husband did not 16 adequately trace his separate property contributions from Cebolla and Kazan to Windsor Way. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Lucy v. Cochran
green
2 sentences2021(Walrath, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 920 .) Similarly, the fact that separate and community property interests have been commingled in an asset does not defeat a reimbursement claim, if the separate property interest “can be traced to its separate property source.” (Cochran, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1057 .) We understand the trial court’s statement that Duerkson “did not adequately unravel” the separate and community property interests in Windsor Way to be a factual finding that Husband did not 16 adequately trace his separate property contributions from Cebolla and Kazan to Windsor Way. 2021(Walrath, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 920 .) Similarly, the fact that separate and community property interests have been commingled in an asset does not defeat a reimbursement claim, if the separate property interest “can be traced to its separate property source.” (Cochran, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1057 .) We understand the trial court’s statement that Duerkson “did not adequately unravel” the separate and community property interests in Windsor Way to be a factual finding that Husband did not 16 adequately trace his separate property contributions from Cebolla and Kazan to Windsor Way. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Nelson v. Black
green
2 sentences2019There is no evidence that [Husband] has ever paid any amounts to repay or service those loans." In response to Husband's objection to the court's credibility finding, the court correctly stated the law on this issue. "[T]he trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted, if it determines that he testified falsely as to some matters covered by his testimony ( Nelson v. Black [ (1954) ], 43 Cal.2d 612 , 275 P.2d 473 )." ( Halagan v. Ohanesian (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 14 , 21, 64 Cal.Rptr. 792 ; accord Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440 , 2019There is no evidence that [Husband] has ever paid any amounts to repay or service those loans." In response to Husband's objection to the court's credibility finding, the court correctly stated the law on this issue. "[T]he trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted, if it determines that he testified falsely as to some matters covered by his testimony ( Nelson v. Black [ (1954) ], 43 Cal.2d 612 , 275 P.2d 473 )." ( Halagan v. Ohanesian (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 14 , 21, 64 Cal.Rptr. 792 ; accord Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440 , | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Dolan v. Buena Engineers, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026(Ibid; Dolan v. Buena Engineers, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1506 .) Husband’s motion for sanctions against wife for filing a frivolous appeal is denied. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Marriage of Watts
green
1 sentence2025In sum, the family court (1) denied Husband’s claims for reimbursement of the closing costs and downpayment for the purchase of the Anaheim property, (2) denied Husband’s claim for reimbursement of cash he contends he spent renovating the Anaheim property, (3) approved a portion of Husband’s claim for money he spent using his separate property to buy items used to improve the Anaheim property, (4) denied Husband’s claim for costs to repair damage to the Anaheim property allegedly caused by Wife, (5) approved Husband’s claim for 50 percent of a charge for plumbing repairs, (6) approved Wife’s c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ajaxo Inc. v. E Trade Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL We review the order denying Husband’s motion for new trial for abuse of discretion (Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 46 ) but make an “independent determination” based on “the entire record, 5 including the evidence” as to whether the asserted error was prejudicial (City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 872 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Reilley
green
2 sentences2025Wife did not dispute that Husband had paid for improvements using his separate property, but she opposed Husband’s claim on the basis the improvements were only cosmetic and that under In re Marriage of Reilley, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1119 , Husband was not entitled to full reimbursement of separate property contributions for improvements absent proof they caused the property to increase in value and the extent of the increase. 2025Wife did not dispute that Husband had paid for improvements using his separate property, but she opposed Husband’s claim on the basis the improvements were only cosmetic and that under In re Marriage of Reilley, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1119 , Husband was not entitled to full reimbursement of separate property contributions for improvements absent proof they caused the property to increase in value and the extent of the increase. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Los Angeles v. Decker
green
1 sentence2025MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL We review the order denying Husband’s motion for new trial for abuse of discretion (Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 46 ) but make an “independent determination” based on “the entire record, 5 including the evidence” as to whether the asserted error was prejudicial (City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 872 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
County of Los Angeles v. Patrick
green
1 sentence2025(In re Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 546, 554 ; County of Los Angeles v. Patrick (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1250 .) Second, the December 2022 order denying Husband’s motion to set aside the modification of child support contained in the May 2022 Stipulated Order was appealable because orders denying a motion to set aside brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 after a final judgment are appealable orders. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Epstein
red
1 sentence2025In sum, the family court (1) denied Husband’s claims for reimbursement of the closing costs and downpayment for the purchase of the Anaheim property, (2) denied Husband’s claim for reimbursement of cash he contends he spent renovating the Anaheim property, (3) approved a portion of Husband’s claim for money he spent using his separate property to buy items used to improve the Anaheim property, (4) denied Husband’s claim for costs to repair damage to the Anaheim property allegedly caused by Wife, (5) approved Husband’s claim for 50 percent of a charge for plumbing repairs, (6) approved Wife’s c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Leonard
green
1 sentence2025(In re Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 546, 554 ; County of Los Angeles v. Patrick (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1250 .) Second, the December 2022 order denying Husband’s motion to set aside the modification of child support contained in the May 2022 Stipulated Order was appealable because orders denying a motion to set aside brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 after a final judgment are appealable orders. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Young v. Cal. Fish & Game Comm'n
green
1 sentence2025(Young v. California Fish & Game Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1190 .) Husband’s brief fails to include cogent legal arguments, legal analysis, and pertinent legal authority. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Braud
green
1 sentence2024Pursuant to Jones’s review of the “Quicken accounts, the deposits to different accounts and the movement of the funds, the total of the parties’ savings and investment accounts never dropped below the amount of the inherited separate property.” The court “accept[ed] the expert’s tracing of [Husband’s] inherited funds toward the down payment on the purchase of the family residence.” Therefore, the court granted Husband’s request for reimbursement of $84,044 under Family Code section 2640. 27 However, it is not enough to establish that the inheritance was available at the time of the downpayment | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Cryer v. Cryer
green
2 sentences2023A court retains authority to augment or modify attorney fee awards “as may be reasonably necessary” throughout litigation. (§ 2030, subd. (c); Cryer, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1056 .) Limiting the awardable amount to the amount a party anticipates at the outset of litigation would be inconsistent with the court’s authority to augment and modify the award. 2. 2023A court retains authority to augment or modify attorney fee awards “as may be reasonably necessary” throughout litigation. (§ 2030, subd. (c); Cryer, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1056 .) Limiting the awardable amount to the amount a party anticipates at the outset of litigation would be inconsistent with the court’s authority to augment and modify the award. 2. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ciprari v. Ciprari (In re Ciprari)
green
1 sentence2023(Id. at p. 783.) In In re Marriage of Ciprari, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at page 96 , the court recognized that strict adherence to either “direct tracing” or “[r]ecapitulation” might not be the only permissible means for tracing under California law. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto
green
1 sentence2021Wife also argues Husband’s challenge to the sufficiency of her evidence failed to “ ‘summarize the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Where a party presents only facts and inferences favorable to his or her position, ‘the contention that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence may be deemed waived.’ ” (Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738 , italics omitted; see In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887 [appellant “cite[d] only evidence favorable to his position, ign | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brewer v. Federici
green
1 sentence2021(Brewer, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1337 .) In her opening brief, Ophira asserts her motion was “based on critical mistakes of both fact and law concerning her right under [s]ection 2640 to seek reimbursement from Leor for the numerous properties” she brought into the marriage. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2021(Goodwine v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 63 Cal.2d 481, 484 (Goodwine) [on its own motion, court must dismiss action if there is no subject matter jurisdiction].) The defendant may also challenge subject matter jurisdiction by making a motion to strike, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or a motion for summary judgment. ( Greener, supra, at p. 1036 ) Husband’s challenge of subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA did not constitute a general appearance. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Heathman v. Vant green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Generale Bank Nederland, N v. v. Eyes of Beholder Ltd. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Beresh v. Sovereign Life Insurance green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Chronometrics, Inc. v. Sysgen, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Landry v. Berryessa Union School District green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Department of Industrial Relations v. Davis Moreno Construction, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Adams v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Cope v. Cope green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Colyer v. Smith green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Daley v. County of Butte green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Acacia Patent Acquisition, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange County green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re Marriage of Stenquist green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| McCarty v. McCarty red | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. State green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Trimble v. Trimble green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Cardinale v. Cardinale green | 1 | 1947–1947 |
| Crouch v. Crouch green | 1 | 1947–1947 |
| Lahaney v. Lahaney green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| McDougald v. First Federal Trust Co. green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| McFadden v. Santa Ana, Orange, & Tustin Street Railway green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.