KEENE v. KEENE (1961)

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant in an action brought by plaintiff to establish rights in defendant's property. Although the evidence concerning the relationship that existed for eighteen years between plaintiff and defendant was sharply conflicting, a search of the record discloses that the trial court's factual findings are substantially supported. We will summarize those findings.

Responsive to the first count of plaintiff's complaint in which plaintiff alleged marriage, breach of marital obligations, and sought divorce, the court found that plaintiff and defendant had never been married.

Concerning the second count involving plaintiff's claim to an interest in defendant's property, the court found as follows: That prior to 1937 defendant had entered into marriage with one Nadine M. Keene and that said marriage had continued until April 3, 1939, when it was terminated by final decree of divorce; that between the years 1938 and 1956 plaintiff and defendant did, at various times and places in California and in other states, cohabit together, but that said cohabitation ceased in 1956 and had not since been resumed; that the cohabitation of the plaintiff and defendant was at all times based solely upon a meretricious relationship existing between them; that plaintiff acquired no property rights whatever as a result of or during her cohabitation with defendant, and that the two owned no property jointly or in common; that during the period of their cohabitation the plaintiff and defendant were frequent traveling companions and that each represented to the public that they were man and wife and at various times had executed legal instruments as husband and wife; that during said period the plaintiff performed the usual and customary work of a housewife and, further, that during a part of that period she had performed work and labor for the mutual benefit of defendant and plaintiff on a ranch standing of record in the name of, and owned by, defendant, said services consisting of helping in the performance of farm labor, including the raising of turkeys, chickens, sheep, cattle, the clearing of land, the sowing and harvesting of grain crops and the growing and harvesting of nut crops; that on a few occasions the plaintiff assisted defendant in connection with the operation of his real estate brokerage business, his furniture business, and the buying and selling of real estate, timber and timber lands; that at no time during their period of cohabitation, that is, from 1938 to 1956, or at any time before or after that period were there any confidential or business relations between them or any mutual business dealings or transactions in which they were mutually or jointly interested financially or otherwise; that there was not at any time prior to the filing of plaintiff's complaint any joint undertaking wherein plaintiff and defendant commenced the business of poultry, stock or grain growing, nor was there ever any partnership, joint undertaking or joint venture of any kind carried on between them; that plaintiff and defendant do not jointly own or possess any money, life insurance or other property, real or personal, either as community property, partnership property, joint venture property or in joint tenancy; that defendant at no time had made any representation, promise or agreement that he would operate any business or own any property as a partner or joint venturer with plaintiff.

Appellant principally grounds her appeal on a statement made in Vallera v. Vallera, 21 Cal.2d 681, at page 685, 134 P.2d 761, 763, which we qyote:

‘* * * Even in the absence of an express agreement to that effect, the woman would be entitled to share in the property jointly accumulated, in the proportion that her funds contributed toward its acquisition.’

First, appellant argues that ‘funds' as that word is used in Vallera v. Vallera is not limited to ‘money’. But certainly ‘funds' means property of some sort, used, along with capital of the man, to accumulate property. Assuming this broad meaning of the word ‘funds', this record is barren of any evidence that appellant contributed any property whatever toward joint accumulation of assets.

For the reasons given, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

SCHOTTKY and PEEK, JJ., concur.