Court Opinion

ID: 9530843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:04:09.609594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:15.953253
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.
As stated in the majority opinion, “The only question to be determined is whether a property settlement agreement had been so merged into an annulment decree that its provision for monthly payments became an operative part thereof, enforceable by execution. The trial court held that it had not ...” The majority reverse.
In my view the record as related in the majority opinion supports, and the better practice requires, the conclusion reached by the trial court. (See Messenger v. Messenger (1956), 46 Cal.2d 619, 637-638 [297 P.2d 988] ; Flynn v. Flynn (1954), 42 Cal.2d 55, 61-62 [265 P.2d 865].) Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment.