## Facts

- Laurance A. See and Elizabeth Lee See married in 1941, separated in 1962, and lived in California during the marriage.
- Laurance worked for family-controlled candy corporations and earned substantial compensation during the marriage.
- The trial court entered an interlocutory divorce judgment granting a divorce to each spouse, finding Laurance guilty of extreme cruelty, awarding Elizabeth permanent alimony of $5,400 per month, and finding no community property existed at the time of divorce.
- Laurance’s salary was credited to a corporate book account (“Account 13”) used to pay many family expenses; he also used a bank account said to contain mainly separate property but into which some salary was deposited.
- Separate and community funds were commingled in these accounts, and community living expenses were paid from them.
- The trial court treated the community as exhausted because community expenditures allegedly exceeded community income over the marriage.
- On appeal, Laurance challenged the cruelty finding, the divorce granted to Elizabeth, and the alimony award; Elizabeth challenged the finding of no community property.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding of extreme cruelty and the grant of a divorce to Elizabeth on that ground.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent alimony, and whether the amount could stand given errors in the property disposition.
3. Whether the trial court erred in finding there was no community property at separation, including whether commingling and claimed excess community expenditures defeated the community property presumption.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of extreme cruelty and the divorce granted to Elizabeth.
- The Court affirmed that an alimony award was legally permissible and not an abuse of discretion in principle, even though a divorce was granted to both parties.
- The Court reversed the determination that no community property existed and remanded for a retrial limited to property issues.
- Because the property disposition was reversed, the portion of the judgment fixing the amount of alimony was also reversed for reconsideration in light of the new property determinations.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property; the spouse claiming separate property bears the burden to trace and prove separate character.
- Commingling of separate and community funds does not, by itself, eliminate community interests; tracing rules apply, and conclusory bookkeeping is insufficient to defeat the community presumption.
- A theory that community property cannot exist at separation because community expenditures exceeded community income is legally erroneous and cannot support a “no community property” finding.
- Use of separate property to pay community expenses does not automatically create a right to reimbursement; absent agreement or a recognized basis, such payments are generally treated as contributions to the community.
- Alimony may be awarded to either spouse even when a divorce is granted to both, and the amount may require reassessment when property classification is corrected.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the cruelty finding and confirmed the trial court’s authority to award alimony, but reversed the “no community property” determination because it conflicted with the community-property presumption and proper rules for commingling, tracing, and reimbursement, requiring a retrial on property and reconsideration of alimony amount.


See v. See, 64 Cal. 2d 778 (Cal. 1966)