{
  "id": 2854192,
  "name": "Virginia LOHBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don LOHBECK, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lohbeck v. Lohbeck",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7161",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.M. 78"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "380 P.2d 825"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "69 N.M. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2787349
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/69/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.M. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5344132
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/64/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.M. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5346403
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/64/0021-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3020,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.701,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.474140541606369e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4453060776902437
    },
    "sha256": "44bba508a04eaf30350680a7f6c774410612ac0f4fce8564e8da5bdbdfa3e332",
    "simhash": "1:620a6e9afe39d3a0",
    "word_count": 505
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:49.886466+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Virginia LOHBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don LOHBECK, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COMPTON, Chief Justice.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the district court adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt and sentencing him to 90 days in the county jail.\nAppellant appeals on the ground that he was denied a fair and impartial trial in criminal contempt proceedings; that the acts alleged to have been committed by him were not in contempt of court; and that there is no substantial evidence to support his conviction.\nThe contempt charge grew out of appellant\u2019s action in transferring title to certain community personalty to the Madrid Corporation, of which he was the principal stockholder, after the divorce complaint and answer thereto had been filed and in which the particular personalty transferred had been alleged generally and admitted to be community property, but before the entry of a decree of the court either granting the divorce or making distribution of the community property. Another basis of the charge was the filing by the - appellant of a replevin action in the name of Madrid Corporation for- the recovery of property held by appellee under court order.\nIn her petition for contempt, it was appellee\u2019s position that the court had acquired jurisdiction of all of the community property in the pending suit and that appellant by filing the replevin action was acting in direct violation and contempt of the orders of the court. When he appeared at the hearing he admitted the property transfer prior to any order of court or divorce decree but denied that it constituted contempt. He made no answer to the charge of causing the replevin action to be instituted and no proof thereof was produced.\nThe appellant contends here that the acts alleged by the petition and admitted by him do not constitute contempt. We think his position is well taken with respect to the conveyance prior to the entry of any order by the court. During coverture the sole power of disposition of the personal property of the community was vested in him. Section 57-4-3, 1953 Compilation. If during pendency of the proceeding, had appellee desired to prevent the husband from 'disposing of the community personalty, resort was available by invoking Section 22-7-6, 1953 Compilation. It is the restraining order that effectively confers jurisdiction of the res on the court. Greathouse v. Greathouse, 64 N.M. 21, 322 P.2d 1075; Ortiz v. Gonzales, 64 N.M. 445, 329 P.2d 1027.\nOther questions are urged for' a reversal of the order of the court but, in view of what has been said, a discussion of them is rendered unnecessary to a decision. -\nThe cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside his order and proceed in a manner not inconsistent herewith.\nIt is so ordered.\nCARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COMPTON, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patricio Sanchez, Annette R. Shermack, Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "M. W. Hamilton, Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "380 P.2d 825\nVirginia LOHBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don LOHBECK, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7161.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nApril 15, 1963.\nSee also 69 N.M. 203, 365 P.2d 445.\nPatricio Sanchez, Annette R. Shermack, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nM. W. Hamilton, Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 110,
  "last_page_order": 112
}