Home

Thesaurus

						iLawDictionary.Com			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Cause of Action-Property			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Rules of Evidence

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal
A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
A cause of action for damages is itself personal property
(Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z

A cause of action for damages is personal property Civ. Code, § 953
(Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc..)

A cause of action for damages is itself personal property. (See Civ. Code, § 953 [“A thing in action is a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding”]; Parker v. Walker (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1182-1183 [“A cause of action to recover money in damages . . . is a chose in action and therefore a form of personal property”]; see also Iszler v. Jordan (N.D. 1957) 80 N.W.2d 665, 668-669 [a chose in action is property].) At the time of the divorce judgment, all causes of action that could have been asserted against the jeweler by a buyer of the ring were Erstad’s personal property. He was, after all, the purchaser of the ring. The divorce agreement awarded to each party his or her respective personal property, except as otherwise expressly provided. The disposition of the ring was expressly provided for in the agreement, i.e., plaintiff was given her jewelry. Any extant choses in action against defendant, however, were not expressly provided for in the agreement, therefore, they were retained by Erstad as part of his personal property.

To be sure, Erstad could have transferred or assigned his rights to legal recourse to plaintiff (see, e.g., Dixon-Reo Co. v. Horton Motor Co. (1922) 49 N.D. 304 [191 N.W. 780, 782] [a right arising out of an obligation, i.e., a thing in action, is the property of the person to whom the right is due and may be transferred]), but there are no allegations Erstad either did so or manifested an intention to do so. (See, e.g., Krusi v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 995, 1005; Vaughn v. Dame Construction Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 144, 148; see also Nisewanger v. W.J. Lane Co. (1947) 75 N.D. 448, 455 [28 N.W.2d 409, 412] [under North Dakota law, when a chose in action is assignable, the clear intent to assign must be established].[2])

Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc. G0332541/12/05 CA4/3

Jan 12 2005

G033254
[PDF] [DOC]

Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc. 1/12/05 CA4/3

Filed 1/12/05

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z
Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476]
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents