Polakis

I concur. The trial court found that despite the parties living" together seven months, taking a trip to Europe, and begetting a child, there was no reconciliation. But the court also found that the wife was entitled to $1,000, a finding that can be supported upon no theory of law other than that the money is her share of property jointly accumulated while the parties were living together. Aside from being miserly pay, indeed, for seven months’ consortium and mothering respondent’s child, as remuneration it is in direct conflict with the finding there was no reconciliation, and there is no evidence in the record to support an award in this amount. Therefore, these inconsistent findings as to a material issue require a reversal. (Miller v. Smith, 179 Cal.App.2d 114 [ 3 *608 Cal.Rptr. 492 ]; Huling v. Seccombe, 88 Cal.App. 238 [ 263 P. 362 ] ; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1852.)

I dissent. Appellant, Mrs. Polakis, was granted a judgment for separate maintenance against her husband, Dr. Polakis, on March 2, 1964. The parties’ community property rights were adjudicated at that time. The parties then attempted a reconciliation from August 12, 1965, until February 4, 1966. Dr. Polakis filed his complaint for divorce one month later, on March 14, 1966. Thus, it is absolutely clear (and appellant practically concedes) that whether or not she was entitled to an additional share of the property accumulated by Dr. Polakis during the period of attempted reconciliation depends on whether the parties had effected an actual reconciliation.

In my judgment the trial judge clearly and unequivocally found that the parties had not reconciled. Since there is substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact, the trial judge’s determination is conclusive on appeal (Small v. Small, 123 Cal.App.2d 870 [ 268 P.2d 63 ] ; Nemer v. Nemer, 117 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 254 P.2d 661 ]). In fact, it is quite obvious that when the trial court made the $1,000 adjustment in favor of Mrs. Polakis, referred to by the majority, he was under a misconception of the law; he probably.…

This ease involves a fiercely contested domestic battle between Evangelos Polakis, a Modesto surgeon, and his wife, Matina. In some of its aspects the judgment of divorce that is questioned on this appeal must be affirmed, but, because of irreconcilable contradictions in the findings concerning the property problems of the parties, those issues will have to be redetermined.

The ancestry of each of the parties is of Greek derivation, ■and the trial judge in his memorandum of decision characterized them as “. . . persons of unusual and exceptional intellect, prone to be highly emotional. ...” They were married on August 21, 1960, but their quarrels and apparent incompatibility caused the wife, some years ago, to commence and pursue to completion an action for separate maintenance, although they had at that time one child, a boy born in October 1961. The decree was granted on March 2, 1964, and the two parties then lived separately until August 12, 1965. The husband, during that time or a large part of it, was qualifying as a surgeon.

An attempt at reconciliation, which appellant contends resulted in an actual reconciliation, began, and the parties lived together for approximately…