Court Opinion

ID: 9531386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:22.015928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:26.159653
License: Public Domain

Hunter, J.
(dissenting)—I dissent. The single issue in this case is whether the decedent’s obligation to pay child support survives his death. The law has been well settled in this state since our pronouncement in the case of Stone v. Bayley, 75 Wash. 184, 134 Pac. 820 (1913). I disagree with the holding of the majority that the Stone case is not controlling in the instant case and with the reasons stated therefor.
The majority opinion states that the real basis of the Stone decision is that this court held it was the intention of the parties that the obligation of their contract should survive the husband’s death; and that the property settlement agreement was not mentioned in the decree, in the Stone case, whereas in the instant case, it is a part of the decree; that since it is a part of the decree, it is subject to modification and the intention of the parties under the contract does not apply. This analysis by the majority is contrary to our express holding in the Stone case. There we said:
“We are convinced that it was the intention of the parties that the obligation of this contract should survive the husband’s death during the life and minority of the child. We are further convinced that, under our statute, a similar provision if contained in the decree of divorce would have been valid and surviving, and that neither such a decree *461nor such a contract contravenes any principle of public policy.” (Italics mine.)
In the instant case the provision contained in the decree is identical with the provision for child support contained in the property settlement agreement, since the agreement was adopted by the decree in every detail. The majority’s erroneous analysis of the Stone case is further demonstrated by the opinion in Gainsburg v. Garbarsky, 157 Wash. 537, 289 Pac. 1000 (1930) where this court, citing the Stone case, held that support-money payments awarded in a foreign judgment were a proper basis for a claim against the estate of the deceased father, where the divorce decree provided for payments to be made for a fixed period of ten years. The Stone case was also cited with approval in Cissna v. Beaton, 2 Wn. (2d) 491, 98 P. (2d) 651 (1940).
The majority cite Esteb v. Esteb, 138 Wash. 174, 244 Pac. 264; 246 Pac. 27 (1926), as authority for holding that a decree, standing alone, ordering the husband to provide support for his minor children operates in personam and would not survive his death. This case does not affect the rule of the Stone case.
In the Esteb case, the father appealed from the modification of a divorce decree requiring him to continue support-money payments for his daughter, then eighteen years of age, until she became age twenty-one. During the pend-ency of the appeal, the father died. His executrix was substituted as party appellant. This court, in affirming the trial court, decided only whether a divorced father could be compelled to provide funds for the college education of a minor child whose custody had been given to the mother. No issue of the survival of payments after the death of the father could have been raised in the lower court, since the father at that time was living. The issue of survival of the judgment after the death of the father was not raised until, upon petition for rehearing the substituted appellant requested clarification as to whether the opinion also bound the father’s estate. Since the father’s death occurred subsequent to the original action, the issue of survival of payments could not have been considered by *462the trial court and it could not properly be considered on review. Consequently, the court’s opinion as to the effect of the decree as a result of the appellant father’s death amounts to only an advisory comment to the executrix, and does not even rise to the status of dicta.
The Esteb case, therefore, cannot be considered authority for the law regarding the survival of support payments. Moreover, since the Esteb case, the rule of the Stone case was affirmed in Gainsburg v. Garbarsky, supra, was cited with approval in Cissna v. Beaton, supra, and is now the established law of this state. The rule of the Stone case is therefore controlling on this appeal. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Mallery and Finley, JJ., concur with Hunter, J.
March 14, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.