Heise v. Myron
Before: White
WHITE, P. J. Plaintiff and defendant in this proceeding were formerly husband and wife. On April 7, 1951, a final decree of divorce was entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff herein by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. On March 22, 1950, the parties herein entered into a property settlement agreement. The agreement in question provided in part as follows:
111. The parties hereto, and each of them, may live separate and apart from the other, free of all marital domination or interference on the part of the other, and each party hereto shall have the right to engage in such business or social activities as he or she shall desire without any interference of any nature or kind whatsoever on the part of the other party hereto.
“2. Each of the parties hereto agrees not to molest the other or to interfere with his or her social or business activities, directly or indirectly. ’ ’
In the property settlement agreement plaintiff received as his sole and separate property, a lease on all of the second floor of a two-story building located at 1024 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California, on a property known as the Grand Ballroom. The lease commenced October 1, 1950, and will expire September 30, 1955. Pearl Rose was the owner of the real property and the lessor in said lease.
In the division of the properties in accordance with the property settlement agreement, defendant herein was given the Colonial Ballroom, being a ballroom located at the south[267]west córner of Venice Boulevard and Flower Street in the city of Los Angeles, California. Both plaintiff and defendant executed the necessary papers to transfer their respective properties, so that each held the property so received as separate property.
The lease on the Grand Ballroom which plaintiff received provided for a rental of $500 per month.
The foregoing assignment by defendant to plaintiff of the lease just referred to, contains the following language:
“This assignment is intended to and shall be construed to assign, transfer, and convey any and all interest therein which I have had, now have or may in the future claim to have as community property, joint tenancy, tenants in common, or otherwise; and this assignment shall entitle the assignee to any and all benefits to be derived from said lease or any options, extensions or renewals of the same.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)