Court Opinion

ID: 9547899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:54:01.65828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:12.690155
License: Public Domain

TBAYNOK, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting. I agree that the 1951 amendment to Civil Code, section 139 applies to support provisions in an integrated agreement incorporated in a divorce decree entered subsequent to the effective date of that amendment. Before that amendment the obligation to support under the provisions of an integrated agreement did not terminate on death or remarriage unless the agreement so provided. (Anderson v. Mart, 47 Cal.2d 274, 280 [303 P.2d *84539].) If the obligation to support incorporated in a divorce decree was not part of an integrated agreement, it always terminated on death or remarriage. (Civ. Code, § 139.) Thus, there was no necessity for the 1951 amendment unless it applied to support provisions in integrated agreements.
In my opinion, however, the obligation in the present case did not terminate on death or remarriage, for the parties “otherwise provided.” True, they did not specifically mention death or remarriage, or any other contingency, but by providing that the payments should continue until the “first day of July, 1956” they agreed that the payments were not to terminate for any reason before that date. By specifying that date, they necessarily precluded any other.
I would affirm the judgment.
Gibson, C. J., and Spence, J., concurred.
The petition of plaintiff and appellant for a rehearing and application to augment the record were denied October 17, 1957. Gibson, C. J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.