(Download) "In re Marriage of Drivon" by First Appellate District, Division Four Court of Appeal of California # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: In re Marriage of Drivon
- Author : First Appellate District, Division Four Court of Appeal of California
- Release Date : January 14, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
[28 CalApp3d Page 897] The court made the remarks alleged to be prejudicial after the testimony regarding the existence of the loans from the father-in-law was essentially concluded. An examination of the record demonstrates no error or prejudice to appellant from the court's remarks. Since the determination was supported by substantial, and almost conclusive evidence (including that of appellant), that determination must be accepted by this court on appeal. (Small v. Smith (1971) 16 Cal. App. 3d 450 [94 Cal. Rptr. 136].) The reporter's transcript shows that the court indicated its intention to [28 CalApp3d Page 898] receive expert testimony as to the valuation of the home. Assent of the parties is implied from the failure to object to this procedure by the court at any time, during the hearing or subsequently. The court had the authority, on its own motion, to appoint an expert to assist it in determining the value of the property. (Evid. Code, § 730.) Since the other factors used in reaching figures for valuation of the property were not in evidence before the court during the oral hearing, it may reasonably be inferred that the court acted properly and based these figures on the expert evidence. It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. (Evid. Code, § 664.) In making an equal distribution of the community assets, the trial court awarded the family residence to the respondent. In doing so, the court took into consideration the fact that the parties were indebted to respondent's father in the sum of $6,904 for certain loans, and ordered that respondent assume repayment thereof. Although there was no evidence as to when respondent's father would demand repayment, the trial court had received evidence that it would be necessary to sell the residence if the loans were to be repaid. That testimony provided a sufficient basis for the trial court, in determining the value of the home as a community asset, to make a deduction from its market value of a sum based upon normal real estate commissions, even though the trial court did not specifically direct that the home be sold.