Court Opinion

ID: 9633413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:46:33.127162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:35.103382
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
Dissenting. — As I read the contract which is the basis of the controversy between the parties one cannot say with certainty that Mr. Puckett agreed to pay his wife $250 per' month as part of the consideration for the division of property in the manner agreed upon, or in fulfillment of his marital obligation of support. He contends that the decrees of divorce are subject to modification because, on account of business reverses, he is no longer able to pay that amount and it" “is not necessary for the support and maintenance of said plaintiff and minor child ...” And *844although an affidavit mentioned in his notice of motion is not shown by the record, his application for modification was made upon grounds which tendered the issue of fact as to the basis of the contract he made.
Mrs. Puckett, by way of affidavit, pleaded facts relevant upon this issue. Regardless of Mr. Puckett’s income, she said, he ‘1 does have sufficient capital assets, or the ability to obtain same, so as to be well able to continue said payment,” and she referred to the allegations of the divorce complaint fixing $200,000 as the value of the community property. The allegations concerning the character and value of the property held by the appellant were denied by him, the affidavit continued, and he asserted that his net worth was $99,500. As a result of negotiations, she entered into a property settlement which was approved as to form and contents by the interlocutory decree and she “further agreed not to further question or make the subject of litigation, the question of fact as to the nature and extent of the property held by the defendant, or as to whether it was the community property of the parties or the separate property of the defendant, nor to further question the facts as to the income of the defendant.” Her agreement with Mr. Puckett for monthly payments of $250 “was part of the property settlement effected between the parties” and the provision of the decrees incorporating into them the requirement of the agreement “was to that extent an element and a part of the determination by the court of the property rights between the parties, and was not intended, and did not constitute an award of alimony.”
The court refused to consider the application for modification upon the merits, for when the appellant called his first witness, an objection to the introduction of any evidence upon that issue was sustained. The ground assigned for this ruling was that as the provisions of the divorce decrees had been made “pursuant to and as a part of a property settlement agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant prior to the entry of said judgments, or either of them, that this court was without power and jurisdiction to modify said judgments or either of them, as requested by the defendant. ’ ’ However, Mrs. Puckett’s motion was granted and the appellant ordered to pay her $100 for costs and attorney’s fees.
The language of the contract does not compel the conclusion that it was made in accordance with a property settlement agreement and not in fulfillment of any marital .or parental obligation. True, it refers to the desire of the parties *845to settle their property rights, but it mentions, as among those rights, that of “maintenance and support for the wife and of the minor child.” Of some significance is the provision of the contract that “all obligation or liability of the husband for the support and maintenance of the wife” shall terminate if she remarries. Ordinarily, an amount payable in monthly installments in satisfaction of property rights is not relinquished in part upon remarriage. Also, the contract specifically continues the obligation of Mr. Puckett to pay an amount to be fixed by agreement or order of court for the support and maintenance of the daughter in the event of Mrs. Puckett’s remarriage, which is, to some extent, inconsistent with the purpose of a property settlement agreement resting entirely upon a division of assets. Moreover, the contract provides that the payments of money and transfers of property to the wife shall be in full satisfaction of her right to support and maintenance by way of alimony or otherwise.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me, the question concerning the character of the contract which was the basis of the divorce decrees is one of fact, and the appellant is entitled to a hearing for the purpose of presenting evidence upon that issue. At that time Mrs. Puckett should be allowed to offer evidence supporting her position. If the court decides that the agreement to pay $250 per month was made to discharge the appellant’s legal obligation to support his wife and their child, it should receive.evidence as to his ability to continue making payments of that amount. For in granting a divorce, the court may compel á husband to make suitable provision for the support of his wife and the maintenance of the minor children, “having regard to the circumstances of the parties respectively; and the court may from time to time modify its orders in these respects.” (Sec. 139 Civ. Code) “This statutory provision enters into every decree in an action for divorce which provides for the payment by the husband of an allowance for the support of the wife, as fully as though it should be incorporated into the terms of the decree.” (Soule v. Soule, 4 Cal.App. 97, 100 [87 P. 205].) It gives the court continuing jurisdiction to modify, from time to time, the requirements concerning the payment of alimony. (Leupe v. Leupe, 21 Cal.2d 145 [130 P.2d 697]; see McClure v. McClure, 4 Cal.2d 356 [49 P.2d 584, 100 A.L.R. 1257]; Dupont v. Dupont, 4 Cal.2d 227 [48 P.2d 677].) But a finding of fact that the promise to pay the stated monthly installments was in settlement of the property interests of the *846parties, would make the appellant’s present financial condition immaterial, for a decree based upon such a contract is not subject to modification. (Miller v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.2d 733 [72 P.2d 868].) However, a court is never bound by a contract of the parties, or the provisions of a decree approving it and ordering that its obligations be carried out, from making such provisions for a minor child as may seem necessary and proper. (Sec. 138, Civ. Code; Rosher v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.2d 556 [71 P.2d 918].)
As to that part of the order relating to attorney’s fees, the motion of the appellant and that of Mrs. Puckett were heard on five days including September 10th, when they were submitted for decision. No ruling was made until September 26th, when Mr. Puckett was ordered to pay the respondent $100. At that time, Mrs. Puckett’s attorney had rendered the services mentioned in the notice of motion and the court had no authority to make an order concerning payment of them. (Dixon v. Dixon, 216 Cal. 443 [14 P.2d 498]; Smith v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App. 177 [264 P. 573].)
Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the order should be reversed with directions to the trial court to hear and determine the appellant’s motion in accordance with the rules which have been stated.
Traynor, J., concurred.