## Facts

- Catherine and John Gudelj married in 1938 and had a minor son.
- Catherine filed for separate maintenance and support; John cross-complained for divorce.
- The trial court granted Catherine an interlocutory divorce decree on extreme cruelty, denied John’s cross-complaint, and awarded Catherine physical custody with a restriction against removing the child from the county.
- The decree ordered $50 per month in child support and $100 per month in alimony for two years.
- During marriage, John acquired a one-fourth interest in a cleaning business (Helene French Cleaners), paying part in cash and financing the balance by promissory note.
- In 1948, the parties bought a home for $15,000; the deed named them as joint tenants, the down payment came from both community and John’s separate funds, and subsequent payments were made from John’s separate property.
- The trial court found John’s one-fourth interest in Helene French Cleaners to be his separate property and found only a one-sixth interest in the home to be community property, awarding Catherine $2,375 in lieu of her community interest and temporary possession for 60 days.
- Catherine appealed the custody-removal restriction, the adequacy of support, and the property characterizations and distribution.

## Issues

1. Whether restricting Catherine from removing the child from the county was an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the child support and limited-duration alimony awards were so inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether the evidence rebutted the presumption that property acquired during marriage—including a business interest acquired partly on credit and the jointly titled home—was community property, and whether the apportionment and distribution were supported by the record.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the custody order, including the restriction on removing the child from the county.
- The court affirmed the child support and alimony awards.
- The court reversed the decree’s property provisions and remanded for a new trial on property characterization and distribution.
- As to Helene French Cleaners, the court held the community-property presumption for credit acquisitions was not rebutted because there was no showing the seller extended credit solely on the faith of John’s separate property.
- As to the home, the court held the record did not support the trial court’s allocation that left the community with only a one-sixth interest, requiring reconsideration and proper apportionment based on the sources of acquisition and payments.

## Legal Principles

- Custody and related conditions, including geographic removal restrictions, are reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate courts defer to the trial court’s assessment of credibility and the child’s welfare.
- Child support and spousal support awards are committed to the trial court’s discretion and are reversed only on a clear showing of abuse.
- Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property.
- Property acquired on credit during marriage is presumed community; the presumption is rebutted only by proof that the creditor extended credit solely in reliance on the borrower’s separate property, not merely that the borrower had separate assets sufficient to pay.
- When both separate and community contributions are used to acquire or pay for property, the court must determine and allocate the respective interests based on the evidence rather than assign an unsupported fraction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s custody and support determinations but required a new trial on property issues because the evidence did not rebut community-property presumptions for a credit-financed business interest and did not support the home’s apportionment or the resulting equalization payment.


Gudelj v. Gudelj, 41 Cal. 2d 202, 259 P.2d 656 (Cal. 1953)