Emanuel v. Emanuel

California Court of Appeal Jul 22, 1975 No. Civ. 45794Published

Before: Compton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a general "boiler-plate" clause in a property settlement agreement, which states that the agreement is binding on heirs and executors, is insufficient to override the statutory requirement that support payments terminate upon the death of the obligor.

Issues

Whether a general provision binding successors to a property settlement agreement constitutes an agreement in writing to continue support payments after the obligor's death under Civil Code section 4801, subdivision (b).

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In order to invoke such an extension of Hilton, Rheuban and Nicolaides there must be some language in the agreement which can reasonably be interpreted as declaring an intent to comply with the “otherwise agreed” requirement”

“It seems unlikely that such a significant provision in the agreement would have been relegated to a general catch-all clause such as the one on which Mona relies.”

Opinion

COMPTON, J.

On October 24, 1957, Mona Emanuel obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce from her then husband Vincent Emanuel. That decree approved a property settlement agreement between the parties and ordered performance of its executory provisions.

One of those provisions provided that “[Vincent Emanuel] promises and agrees to pay to [Mona Emanuel] for her support and maintenance and as alimony, the sum of Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars per month, commencing on the fifteenth day of October, 1957, and continuing thereafter on the fifteenth day of each succeeding month until the death or remarriage of [Mona].”

On February 9, 1974, Vincent died. Wilma Emanuel and the United California Bank are the co-executors of his estate. Mona filed a claim

[58]

against the estate for $69,000 which is the aggregate of $400 per month for 14.5 years—Mona’s statistically computed life expectancy. The co-executors rejected her claim.

Mona next commenced the instant action to enforce the rejected claim. The trial court sustained a demurrer to her complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision 3. Mona appeals from the order sustaining the demurrer and the judgment of dismissal. The order is not separately appealable but is reviewable on appeal from the judgment of dismissal.

Appended to the complaint as an exhibit is the property settlement agreement which contains a provision which was not carried forward in the interlocutory decree, but which is crucial to the resolution of the validity of Mona’s claim. That provision reads as follows:

“12. Agreement Binding on Successors: All of the covenants, provisions, conditions and agreements in this instrument contained shall apply to and be binding and obligatory upon, and shall inure to the benefit of not only the parties hereto but also their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assigns.”

Civil Code section 139 (now Civ. Code, § 4801, subd. (b)) at the time provided in part:

Emanuel v. Emanuel

AI Brief

COMPTON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief