Tuttle v. Tuttle

California Supreme Court Feb 19, 1952 No. S. F. 18253Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court correctly determined the monthly payments were an integral part of a property settlement agreement rather than alimony, and therefore the decree was not subject to modification.

Issues

Whether the monthly payments in the divorce decree were alimony or part of a property settlement agreement.
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify the decree.
Whether the defendant's reliance on the property settlement agreement constituted a collateral attack on the decree.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The decisive question presented by Lillie’s motion is whether the payments awarded by the decree were alimony, or part of a settlement of property rights.”

“There is ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding in the order denying modification that the provision for payments to Lillie was a disposition of property rights and not alimony.”

“The decree, therefore, is not subject to modification.”

EDMONDS, J.

The marital rights of Emmett Norton Tuttle and Lillie Alma Tuttle were determined by interlocutory and final decrees of divorce. Both decrees included certain provisions in regard to their property and required Emmett to make monthly payments to Lillie of a specified amount for eight years. Before the expiration of that time, Lillie moved the court- to modify the final decree. Her appeal, taken upon the clerk’s transcript, is from an order denying the motion.

The interlocutory decree, granted to Lillie upon the ground of desertion, made no mention of any property settlement agreement. As here material, the court “. . . decreed that the hereinafter designated property which is found to be community property be . . . divided and apportioned in the following manner, to-wit: . . .

“7. That plaintiff pay to the cross-complainant, as and for her support and maintenance the sum of One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars per month for a period of one year commencing April 10, 1947; the sum of One Hundred Thirty-five ($135.00) Dollars per month for the next year; the sum of One Hundred Twenty-five ($125.00) Dollars per month for the next year; and the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars per month for the next five (5) years, at which time all payments shall cease and determine; ...”

By the first six of the numbered paragraphs, the court made an approximately equal division of the property of the parties. Emmett was required to pay specified community debts. Paragraphs 8 and 9, which immediately follow the quoted portion of the decree, provide that Emmett should pay income taxes and attorney fees.

Lillie’s motion was based upon the ground that a change of circumstances of the parties justified an increase in the amounts payable to her. In support of the motion, she filed an affidavit in which she made certain statements of fact. Emmett answered by a counteraffidavit, setting forth at length the discussion between the court and counsel upon trial of the divorce action. He alleged that the provision of the decree for the payment of stated amounts for a limited period was not an award of alimony but an integral part of a property settlement agreement referred to in these discussions.

[421]

Lillie replied by a further affidavit in which she denied the making or existence of any property settlement agreement.

Tuttle v. Tuttle

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief