Grolemund v. Cafferata
17 Cal. 2d 679 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The entire community estate is liable for satisfaction of a judgment against the husband for his tort. The husband's statutory power of management and control over community property includes the power to subject it to his debts and liabilities, and this was not changed by the 1927 statute giving the wife a vested interest.
Facts:
- In 1926, Lena and Caesaer Grolemund acquired the leasehold and furniture for a rooming house in San Francisco using commingled funds, which included Lena's separate property.
- After 1927, they replaced old furniture with new furniture purchased with income from the rooming house.
- In 1930, the Grolemunds bought real property in San Mateo County with commingled funds.
- On August 6, 1933, Caesaer Grolemund was involved in an automobile collision where he was found to be negligent.
- Emilio Cafferata sustained damages as a result of the collision caused by Caesaer Grolemund.
Procedural Posture:
- Emilio Cafferata sued Caesaer Grolemund in the Superior Court of San Francisco for damages arising from an automobile collision.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Cafferata against Caesaer Grolemund on April 17, 1935.
- Cafferata obtained writs of execution, and the respective county sheriffs levied upon the Grolemunds' personal and real property.
- Lena Grolemund filed third-party claims, which a court in the tort action determined to be community property.
- Lena and Caesaer Grolemund then filed the present action in Superior Court, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the sheriff's sale of the property.
- The trial court in the injunction action found for the defendant Cafferata, dissolved a preliminary injunction, and adjudged that Cafferata was entitled to levy upon the property.
- Lena Grolemund, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is community property, including property acquired after the wife gained a vested interest under Civil Code § 161a in 1927, liable for the satisfaction of a tort judgment against the husband alone?
Opinions:
Majority - Curtis, J.
Yes, community property is liable for the satisfaction of a tort judgment against the husband alone. The enactment of Civil Code § 161a in 1927, which defined the wife's interest as 'present, existing and equal,' did not diminish the husband's statutory power of management and control over community property as established in Civil Code §§ 172 and 172a. This power of management is not limited to consensual transactions but includes the ability to subject the community property to liabilities arising from his torts. To hold otherwise would be to deny the husband's power of management and would create an unjust situation where a tort victim could not recover if the tortfeasor's only assets were community property. California's community property system does not recognize the 'community debt' doctrine, and instead presumes community assets are liable for the husband's obligations unless specifically exempted by statute.
Analysis:
This case is significant for confirming that the wife's vested interest in community property, established by Civil Code § 161a, is subordinate to the husband's power of management and control for the purposes of satisfying debts and tort liabilities. The decision solidifies the principle that in California, the husband acts as the manager of the community estate, and liabilities he incurs can be satisfied from the entire community property, with few statutory exceptions. This ruling distinguishes California's system from that of states like Washington, which follow a 'community debt' doctrine, thereby providing a clear rule for creditors seeking to satisfy judgments against a married individual.
Unlock the full brief for Grolemund v. Cafferata