Seymour v. Seymour

California Court of Appeal Jan 13, 1937 No. Civ. S. C. 33Published

Before: Desmond

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party who invokes the court's jurisdiction to incorporate a property settlement agreement into a divorce decree is estopped from later challenging the court's jurisdiction to enforce that agreement, including through contempt proceedings.

Issues

Whether a husband who obtained a divorce decree incorporating a property settlement agreement can later challenge the court's jurisdiction to order payments under that agreement.
Whether a court has the power to enforce a divorce decree requiring money payments through contempt proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a person, having invoked the jurisdiction of a court and submitted himself thereto, cannot be heard thereafter, in a collateral proceeding, to question the jurisdiction so invoked.”

“Since in our opinion the court had jurisdiction to make such an order we see no reason why it cannot enforce the order by a citation in contempt.”

DESMOND, J.,

pro tem.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion to modify a judgment entered in a divorce action.

The court embodied in its interlocutory decree the terms of a property settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant, by which there were set aside to each of the parties certain items of community property which were listed in the complaint for divorce and by which, also, provision was made that plaintiff should pay unto defendant the sum of $400 per month at the rate of $100 weekly for a period of three years or until the remarriage of the defendant within that time. By the final judgment entered December 8, 1934, it was ordered, “that wherein said interlocutory decree relates to the property of the parties hereto, said property be and the same is hereby assigned in accordance with the terms thereof to the parties therein declared to be entitled thereto”. A few months following the entry of this judgment an order to show cause in

contempt and attorney’s fees was issued and upon the hearing July 2, 1935, the court took the matter under submission. It was then that the motion to modify the interlocutory decree was filed, the denial of that motion being entered on July 24th.

Following service of the summons and' complaint upon defendant and before the return thereof, the property settlement agreement in question had been signed by the parties. The default of the defendant then being entered, the court proceedings were carried through entirely by the plaintiff.

[483]

Through his attorney he introduced in evidence the property settlement agreement, and by his attorney he prepared the interlocutory decree by which the court expressly approved the terms of the property settlement, “providing for the support and maintenance of the defendant herein and for the disposition of certain property and the rights of the parties thereto”.

Appellant argues that the court was without jurisdiction to enter a decree requiring the husband to make payments of money after the entry of the decree, for the reason that the husband and not the wife was awarded the divorce, citing

Seymour v. Seymour

AI Brief

DESMOND, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief