Palen v. Palen

GOULD, J.,

pro tem.

In an action in the state of Missouri plaintiff herein was awarded a decree of divorce from defendant and was granted an alimony allowance. Allegingi failure on the part of defendant to make certain alimony pdyments and to observe the terms of a property agreement, plaintiff brought this suit in California. Originally the action was simply to recover for certain sums of money due from defendant under the Missouri decree and the property agreement, but by a supplemental complaint plaintiff also asked in effect that the decree of the Missouri court be established as a continuing judgment in this jurisdiction. Also involved herein is the right of plaintiff to judgment against defendant for an additional sum of money which had been borrowed upon certain life insurance policies, which money defendant had agreed in the property settlement between the parties to repay but which plaintiff herself had paid because j of defendant ’s failure and refusal to do so.

It is settled that a judgment for alimony obtained in another state may be established in this state for the purpose of enforcing it as a continuing judgment in this jurisdiction for the payment of alimony.

(Creager

v.

Superior Court,

126 Cal. App. 280 [14 Pac. (2d) 552];

Straus

v.

Straus,

4 Cal. App. (2d) 461 [41 Pac. (2d) 218, 42 Pac. (2d) 378].) By its judgment in favor of plaintiff herein the tria] court did nothing more with respect to the alimony payments than is authorized by the foregoing decisions. Respondent was given a money judgment for the alimony due at the date of trial, and it was further provided that the provisions of the Missouri decree for future payments be established ^s the decree of the California court with the same force and! effect as if said Missouri judgment had been rendered in this state.

By his property agreement with respondent, appellant had obligated himself to pay off certain loans' on life insurance policies, which policies became respondent’sj property. In the within action respondent originally asked' judgment for damages against appellant for the amount of the unpaid insurance policy loans. After .the trial of the case