In Re the Marriage of Higinbotham

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 721·203 Cal. App. 3d 322·249 Cal. Rptr. 798
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 29, 1988A038255California4,241 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poche, J.

I. Introduction

Maurice Higinbotham (Maurice) and Delois Higinbotham (Delois) appeal and cross-appeal, respectively, from a judgment disposing of their property upon dissolution of their marriage. Maurice contends that the court erred in (1) treating partly as community property a house he bought before marriage; (2) failing to treat as his separate property the increased value of his disability retirement benefits resulting from their tax exempt status; and (3) requiring him to pay a portion of Delois’s attorneys fees. Delois contests these points and asserts in her cross-appeal that (1) she was entitled to a greater share of her attorneys fees; and (2) the judgment should include an order directing Maurice’s retirement plan to pay her an appropriate share of any death or survivor’s benefits payable under the plan.

We reverse as to the treatment of the retirement benefits, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

II. The Church Street House

A. Factual Background

In 1965 Maurice bought a house on West Church Street in Ukiah (the Church Street house) by trading a mobilehome and assuming an outstanding loan. He lived in the house until 1967, when the parties were married.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.