## Facts

- Euphrasia Van Camp sued Frank Van Camp for divorce, alleging adultery and extreme cruelty based on his conduct and suspected improper relations with another woman, causing her mental suffering.
- Frank entered the marriage with substantial separate property, including cash, notes, real estate, and corporate stock.
- During the marriage, Frank served as president and manager of the Van Camp Sea Food Company and devoted his exclusive attention to its management.
- Frank received a large salary and additional amounts for business expenses in connection with his management services.
- The trial court granted Euphrasia a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty (but did not find adultery).
- The trial court found the community estate worth $90,000 and awarded Euphrasia $60,000 (two-thirds), and also characterized certain property as her separate property.
- Both parties appealed: Frank challenged the divorce and property awards; Euphrasia challenged the community valuation as too low.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding of extreme cruelty warranting a divorce.
2. Whether the trial court correctly characterized, valued, and divided property by distinguishing community interests from the rents, issues, and profits of Frank’s separate property, including business-related gains during marriage.

## Decision

- The divorce decree was affirmed.
- The portion of the judgment valuing and dividing the community estate (including the $60,000 award) was reversed.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to community-property valuation and division.

## Legal Principles

- Where evidence is conflicting, an appellate court does not reweigh testimony when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting trial findings.
- Extreme cruelty may be established by unjustifiable marital conduct that causes great mental suffering; conduct suggesting improper relations can qualify even without a finding of adultery.
- Property possessed during marriage is presumed community property, but the presumption is rebuttable by evidence tracing the asset to separate property.
- Property owned before marriage, and its rents, issues, and profits, remain separate property.
- When a spouse’s separate-capital business produces gains during marriage and the spouse also performs substantial services, a proper apportionment is required between (a) reasonable compensation for services (community) and (b) return attributable to separate capital (separate).
- In the absence of evidence of a different practice, community earnings are chargeable with family support, and amounts spent for family support are presumed paid from community funds.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the divorce based on extreme cruelty grounded in mental suffering, but required a retrial on property because the community estate had not been valued and allocated with a principled separation between compensation for marital services and profits attributable to pre-marital separate capital, a framework later associated with the Van Camp apportionment method.


Van Camp v. Van Camp, 53 Cal. App. 17 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)