Shaw v. Leff

BROWN (Gerald), P. J. Is the following a complete, unambiguous, integrated agreement, needing no extrinsic evidentiary interpretation ?

[438]LAW OFFICES

SHAW, BARNETT & MORGAN

WILLIAM W. SHAW 3859 MAIN STREET TELEPHONE

JESS A. BARNETT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA OVERLAND 4-2340

JOHN B. MORGAN

1/9/61

Mr. Ted Leff—

Divorce

Retainer..........................750.00

Court Time .......................150.00 per day

plus costs

William: W. Shaw

The trial court held it was incomplete, ambiguous, non-integrated, and permitted introduction of extrinsic interpretive evidence. Defendant appeals from a judgment favoring plaintiff following the jury’s determination plaintiff’s legal services were reasonably worth $13,500, offset by $2,500 already paid by defendant.

We examine the bare memorandum without recitation of any further facts, as defendant would have us do. It appears to relate to fees for Mr. Ted Leff by William W. Shaw, undoubtedly a lawyer. In entirety it states: for a “Divorce,” there is a “Retainer” of “750.00” and “150.00 per day” for "Court Time, ’ ’ “plus costs. ’ ’

We are not told what the parties understood a divorce to include; legally defined it is a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony (McDonald v. McDonald, 6 Cal.2d 457, 461 [58 P.2d 163, 104 A.L.R. 1290]; San Chez v. Superior Court, 153 Cal.App.2d 162, 164 [314 P.2d 135]). A man and woman are married; that marriage is dissolved. Is this all there is to a divorce ? Is this all the parties had in mind, in looking at the memorandum, construing it most strictly against the plaintiff? What about accruals to a marriage, children and property? Need they be considered if a mere dissolution of marriage is the goal? What about custody of children? Support? Is alimony a feature of the dissolution? Is there community property, and its extent? Separate property? Is a property settlement agreement included? How about an order to show cause?