Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Peg STEVENS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Leith STEVENS, Defendant and Respondent.
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?
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 Extension Ass'n 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.
McCOMB, Justice.
MOORE, P. J., and FOX, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 20187.
Decided: November 19, 1954
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)