Citation Numbers: 155 Ky. 203
Judges: Hobson
Filed Date: 10/9/1913
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
Opinion op the Court by
'Affirming.
And it is further ordered and decreed that all the community property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant be equally divided between them.”
She alleged that in July, 1895, the defendant had become the owner of 31 lots in Covington, Kentucky, which she described in her petition, and that he was the owner of these lots in Covington at the time of the entry of the judgment, and was still the owner of them. She also alleged that sections 146, 163, 164 and 687 of the California Civil Code are as follows:
“In case of the dissolution of the marriage by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction the community property, and the homestead, shall be assigned as follows: If the decree be rendered on any other ground than that of adultery or extreme cruelty the community property shall be equally divided between the parties (section 146).
“All property owned by the husband before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise or descent, with the rents, issues and profits thereof, is his separate property.” (Section 163.)
“All other property acquired after marriage by either husband or wife, or both, is community property.” (Section 164.)'
“Community property is property acquired by husband and wife or either during marriage, when not acquired as the separate, property of either.” (Section 687.)’
She alleged that these sections are now in full force and effect and have been at all times since the judgment was rendered; that the real estate in question was purchased by the defendant with money earned by her and the defendant during the marital relationship, and was not acquired by the defendant by gift, bequest, devise or descent; also that the divorce decree was not rendered on the ground of adultery or extreme cruelty. She prayed that the court adjudge her one-half of the lots. The court dismissed her petition; and she appeals.
It will be observed that the plaintiff’s whole case rests not alone on the judgment of the California court,
Section 2121, Kentucky Statutes, provides:
“Upon final judgment of divorce from the bond of matrimony the parties shall be restored such property, not disposed of at the commencement of the action, as either obtained from or through the other before or during the marriage in consideration thereof.”
Section 425 of the Civil Code of Practice also provides :
“Every judgment for a divorce from the bond of matrimony shall contain an order restoring any property not disposed of at the commencement of the action, which either party may have obtained, directly or indirectly, from or through the other, during marriage, in consideration or by reason thereof; and any property so obtained, without valuable consideration, shall be deemed to have been obtained by reason of marriage. The proceedings to enforce this order may be by petition of either party, specifying the property which the other has failed to restore; and the court may hear and determine the same in a summary manner, after ten days’ notice to the party so failing.”
Similar statutes are in force in many of the States. Those quoted from California constitute the laws of that State on the subject. "When the California Court adjudged the equal division of “the community property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant” it simply followed the mandate of the California Statutes, and as these statutes have no extra-territorial effect the natural construction of the judgment is that it refers to property which is subject to the laws of California. Probably the
Judgment affirmed.'