Rich v. Rich (1941) · DecisionDepot

Rich v. Rich

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Apr 28, 1941 No. Civ. 6580Published

Before: Schottky

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree that provides for fixed payments as an integral part of the settlement is not subject to judicial modification, even if the payments are labeled as alimony and the recipient remarries.

Issues

Whether a court has the power to modify a divorce decree to eliminate payments that were part of an incorporated property settlement agreement upon the remarriage of the recipient.
Whether payments designated as 'alimony' in a property settlement agreement are subject to the statutory termination provisions of Civil Code section 139 upon remarriage.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A property agreement, although approved by the court in the divorce action, is not thereafter subject to modification by action of the court”

“The payment of $2,400 to respondent was an integral part of the property settlement agreement”

“The property settlement agreement having been approved by the court and incorporated in the interlocutory decree, is now binding upon the parties, and cannot now be avoided.”

Synopsis

Don Lake for Appellant.

SCHOTTKY, J.,

pro tem.

A property settlement agreement was entered into between respondent and appellant, which contract recited that an action for divorce had been filed by respondent, and that said parties had agreed upon a mutual property settlement of every kind and nature pertaining to property belonging to them, or either of them. After some specific provisions with reference to different properties the agreement provided further:

“Payment of money to first party by second party. Second party does hereby agree to pay to first party the sum of $2400.00, payable $100.00 a month, commencing on the 1st day of September, 1937, and $100.00 on the first day of each and every month thereafter until the full sum of $2400.00 has been paid. Said $2400.00 in monthly installments shall be paid to first party as alimony for her support and maintenance and it is particularly understood and agreed that said payments are not in lieu of any propertj*- right or interest in any community property of first party. Said payments to continue even in event of remarriage.”

An interlocutory decree of divorce was granted to respondent on September 16, 1937, providing in part as follows:

“Decreed that the property settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant ... is hereby approved and incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though set forth herein. . . .

“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum of $2400.00 as alimony for her support and maintenance, payable as follows: $100.00

[528]

as of the first day of September, 1937; $100.00 on the first day of each and every month thereafter until the full sum of $2400.00 has been paid, said payments to continue even though plaintiff remarries.”

A final judgment of divorce was entered on October 16, 1938, and on December 22,1938, plaintiff (respondent herein), remarried. Appellant moved to modify the interlocutory decree by eliminating therefrom all payments accruing after the remarriage of respondent. The court below denied the motion, and this appeal is from that order.

Rich v. Rich

AI Brief

Synopsis

SCHOTTKY, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief