Opinion ID: 1122134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The issue of defendant's status.

Text: Defendant's counterclaim sought a determination that the California decree as originally issued had been modified by an oral agreement. As indicated in People of State of New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610, 67 S.Ct. 903, 91 L.Ed. 1133 and Worthley v. Worthley, supra, this type of relief is available in the discretion of the trial court. As shown above, however, the pertinent California statute does not allow an oral modification which has not been made effectual by modification of the decree itself. Prospective modification was a matter for the trial court's discretion. See Triest v. Triest, 1944, 67 Cal.App.2d 320, 154 P.2d 2 and Bratnober v. Bratnober, 1957, 48 Cal.2d 259, 309 P.2d 441. Cf. Minnear v. Minnear, 131 Colo. 319, 281 P. 2d 517.