No. The huge profits from the company remained his personal property. The court decided that because Mr. Van Camp was paid a fair salary for his job, that salary was the couple's shared property. However, the extra profits (dividends) came from his original investment in the company, which he owned before the marriage. Therefore, those extra profits were like 'rent' on his pre-owned investment, not money earned from his work during the marriage. Since his work was already paid for by the salary, the community was fairly compensated, and the rest of the profits belonged to his separate property.

Yes, the husband treated his wife badly enough to justify a divorce. The court agreed that the husband's actions, like ignoring his wife, spending a lot of time with another woman, and hitting his wife once, were cruel and hurt the wife's feelings a lot. The court said it's okay to consider these actions as cruelty, even if they might also suggest cheating. The judge has to think about how these actions would affect this specific wife, considering her personality and feelings. However, the court said the lower court made a mistake in figuring out how much shared property the couple had. The court explained that most of the money the husband made during the marriage came from his business, which he owned before getting married. The court said they need to look at this again to figure out how much money should be split between the husband and wife.

No. The entire increase in value and profits of a spouse's separate property business does not become community property when the managing spouse receives an adequate salary. Where the spouse has been compensated with a salary that is adequate for their services, that salary is the extent of the community's interest, and the remaining profits derived from the business are properly accredited to the separate capital invested. The court distinguished this case from Pereira v. Pereira, where the husband's personal efforts were the chief contributor to business growth. Here, the court found that Van Camp's salary was adequate compensation for his labor, and the corporation was a distinct entity with significant capital. Therefore, the salary and its proceeds are community property, but the dividends and increased value of the stock, being the rents, issues, and profits of his separate property, remain his separate property.

Yes, the defendant's actions constituted extreme cruelty sufficient to justify the divorce. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision on the divorce issues because there was substantial evidence to support the finding of extreme cruelty. The defendant's conduct, including neglecting the plaintiff, being seen frequently with a corespondent, and striking the plaintiff on one occasion, caused the plaintiff to suffer mentally and physically. The Court rejected the argument that these acts could only be considered as evidence of adultery, citing more recent cases that allow such conduct to be considered as evidence of extreme cruelty. The Court emphasized that the determination of extreme cruelty is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each case and the sensitivity of the complaining party. However, the Court reversed the judgment regarding the amount and value of the community property. The Court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the lower court's finding that there was $90,000 in community property. The Court noted that most of the defendant's income during the marriage came from his separate property (the Van Camp Sea Food Company) and that his salary from the company was largely exhausted by family expenses. The Court rejected the argument that all profits from the company should be considered community property, distinguishing this case from Pereira v. Pereira. The Court remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of community property valuation and division.

Van Camp v. Van Camp

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot