recrimination doctrine in California

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1954Tr., pp. 9-11, 20, 21); (4) It would appear from the Court’s findings that they are both guilty of cruelty.” 'Appellant also calls attention to the fact “that recrimination was not, apparently, pleaded by either of the parties.” Answering the foregoing contentions, respondent’s brief states that since this is an appeal on the judgment roll alone, and there is no transcript of the evidence, and findings were waived, “The evidence is presumed to support the judgment in the absence of findings.” Respondent further claims that there is no evidence “that the trial judge blindly adopted the doctrine

1954Tr., pp. 9-11, 20, 21); (4) It would appear from the Court’s findings that they are both guilty of cruelty.” 'Appellant also calls attention to the fact “that recrimination was not, apparently, pleaded by either of the parties.” Answering the foregoing contentions, respondent’s brief states that since this is an appeal on the judgment roll alone, and there is no transcript of the evidence, and findings were waived, “The evidence is presumed to support the judgment in the absence of findings.” Respondent further claims that there is no evidence “that the trial judge blindly adopted the doctrine

1952Defendant relies upon Comfort v. Comfort, 17 Cal.2d 736, 745-752 [ 112 P.2d 259 ], The discussion of recrimination in that case, however, was directed entirely to the question whether or not the recriminatory defense there involved had become inoperative owing to lapse of time.

1952Defendant relies upon Comfort v. Comfort, 17 Cal.2d 736, 745-752 [ 112 P.2d 259 ], The discussion of recrimination in that case, however, was directed entirely to the question whether or not the recriminatory defense there involved had become inoperative owing to lapse of time.

1952This interest is “to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken down.” ([1943] A.C. at 525, 169 L.T.R. at 34; cf. Hill v. Hill, 23 Cal.2d 82, 93 [ 142 P.2d 417 ] ; Weil v. Weil, 37 Cal.2d 770, 783-784 [ 236 P.2d 159 ].) In examining the doctrine of recrimination, we have given the most serious consideration not only to judicial precedent but also to the work of leading scholars and practitioners.

1952This interest is “to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken down.” ([1943] A.C. at 525, 169 L.T.R. at 34; cf. Hill v. Hill, 23 Cal.2d 82, 93 [ 142 P.2d 417 ] ; Weil v. Weil, 37 Cal.2d 770, 783-784 [ 236 P.2d 159 ].) In examining the doctrine of recrimination, we have given the most serious consideration not only to judicial precedent but also to the work of leading scholars and practitioners.

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952This interest is “to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken down.” ([1943] A.C. at 525, 169 L.T.R. at 34; cf. Hill v. Hill, 23 Cal.2d 82, 93 [ 142 P.2d 417 ] ; Weil v. Weil, 37 Cal.2d 770, 783-784 [ 236 P.2d 159 ].) In examining the doctrine of recrimination, we have given the most serious consideration not only to judicial precedent but also to the work of leading scholars and practitioners.

1952This interest is “to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken down.” ([1943] A.C. at 525, 169 L.T.R. at 34; cf. Hill v. Hill, 23 Cal.2d 82, 93 [ 142 P.2d 417 ] ; Weil v. Weil, 37 Cal.2d 770, 783-784 [ 236 P.2d 159 ].) In examining the doctrine of recrimination, we have given the most serious consideration not only to judicial precedent but also to the work of leading scholars and practitioners.

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].