Anderson v. Mart, S.F. 19535

• Decision Date: 16 November 1956
• Docket Number: S.F. 19535
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Dorothy A. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Maudie O. MART, as Administratrix of the Estate of William E. Anderson, also known as William Everett Anderson, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 539

303 P.2d 539

47 Cal.2d 274

Dorothy A. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Maudie O. MART, as Administratrix of the Estate of William E. Anderson, also known as William Everett Anderson, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant.

S.F. 19535.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Nov. 16, 1956.

Hearing Denied Dec. 12, 1956.

Johnson & Harmon and Robert H. Johnson, San Francisco, for appellant.

Pasquinelli, O'Connor & Panelli and Timothy A. O'Connor, San Jose, for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

On March 12, 1948, plaintiff Dorothy A. Anderson and decedent William E. Anderson executed a property settlement agreement. On June 22, 1948, plaintiff filed an action against decedent for divorce. In her complaint she alleged jurisdictional facts, extreme cruelty, her fitness for child custody, and that she 'does not have sufficient money, means or property with which to support and maintain herself and the minor child of the parties hereto, and that the sum of $60 per month is a reasonable and necessary sum to be allowed said plaintiff as and for the support and maintenance of said plaintiff and the minor child of the parties hereto.' She alleged that 'there is no community property * * *, a property settlement having been entered into by and between the parties.' She prayed for a dissolution of the marriage, for custody of the child, and that 'the defendant be required to pay to plaintiff the sum of $60 per month as and for the support and maintenance of said plaintiff and the minor child' and 'for such other and further relief as the court deems meet and proper.' There was no request that the court approve the agreement or incorporate it in its decree.

The decedent filed an answer in propria personna admitting all allegations except the allegation of extreme cruelty and the allegations with respect to support. He made no further appearance in the action, and it was tried as a default action.

On July 26, 1948, an interlocutory decree was entered granting the divorce, awarding custody of the child to plaintiff, and ordering decedent to 'pay to plaintiff the sum of $60 per month as and for the support and maintenance of said plaintiff and the minor child. * * *' It also decreed that the property settlement agreement 'be, and the same is hereby approved and ratified, and the terms thereof are incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.' Decedent did not appeal, and on October 11, 1949, a final decree of divorce was entered, incorporating the terms of the interlocutory decree. Decedent remarried, and his widow, Maudie O. Mart, who remarried after his death, is the administratrix herein.

On September 24, 1951, plaintiff and her attorney signed and delivered to decedent a stipulation entitled in the court and cause and providing that the interlocutory and final decrees 'may be modified so as to provide that the defendant pay to plaintiff the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50) a month as and for the support and maintenance of plaintiff and the minor child of the parties hereto, and that the above-entitled court may cause to be made and entered herein its order so modifying said decrees.' The stipulation was not filed, and the decrees were not modified, but thereafter decedent paid plaintiff only $50 per month. On April 5, 1952, decedent died. Plaintiff presented to the administratrix of his estate a claim for $60 per month for her life expectancy. The claim was rejected, and plaintiff brought this action.

The trial court found that the estate was indebted to plaintiff on the property settlement agreement and that the agreement was incorporated in and made a part of the decree in the divorce action and that the provision for support therein was an inseparable part of an integrated property settlement agreement and therefore entered judgment for plaintiff for $14,190 to be paid out of the funds of the estate in due course of administration. That sum was fixed by the court as the present value of $50 per month for plaintiff's life expectancy. Defendant administratrix appeals.

In their agreement plaintiff and decedent provided:

'Whereas, there is one (1) child the issue of said marriage of the parties hereto * * *; and,

'Whereas, the parties hereto desire to avoid expense, delay, inconvenience, and litigation with respect to the settlement of their property rights and obligations; * * *

'Now, Therefore, in consideration of the premises, and in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto do mutually agree and promise as follows:

'First: That * * * each party is hereby released and absolved from any and all claims and demands of the other, including all claims of either party upon the other party for support and maintenance as husband and wife, or otherwise, it being understood that this instrument is intended to settle the rights of the parties hereto in all respects, except as hereinafter provided. * * *

'Second: That any and all property acquired by either party from and after the date hereof shall be the sole and separate property of the party acquiring the same; and each party does hereby grant to the other party all such future acquisitions of property as the sole and separate property of the party acquiring the same.

'Third: That each party shall have the immediate right to dispose of or bequeath by Will his or her interests in and to any and all property belonging to him or her from and after the date hereof, and said right shall extend to all of the aforesaid future acquisitions of property as well as to all property set over to either party under this agreement.

'Fourth: That each party does hereby waive and quitclaim any right to share in the estate of the other party, either under a Will or by the laws of succession, or by family allowance, or otherwise.

'Fifth: That each party does hereby accept the provisions herein made for him or for her in full satisfaction of his or her right to the community property of the parties, or other property acquired after marriage by either party, and in full satisfaction of his or her right, if any, to alimony or support and maintenance. Neither party shall at any time hereafter contract any debt, charge, or liability against the property or estate of the other party, and, in the event either party shall do so, he or she will save the other party harmless and free from loss occasioned by such act.'

Provisions were then made for the division of the property. Bank deposits amounting to $5,726.87 and United States War Savings bonds having an approximate maturity value of $2,500 were divided equally; decedent received the better of two automobiles and a vacant lot, appraised in his estate at $600; and plaintiff received the home, sold later for $6,000, and furnishings.

Paragraph 15 provided: 'It is understood and recognized by the parties hereto that they can control the custody of the minor child of the parties hereto only to the extent that their agreement coincides with the other which any Court of competent jurisdiction may make for the best interest of said child. Subject to such recognized premise of law, the parties hereto agree that the Wife shall have the care, custody and control of the minor child, with reasonable right of visitation vested in Husband.'

Paragraph 16 provided: 'Subject to approval by any Court of competent jurisdiction, Husband agrees to pay to Wife the sum of Sixty ($60) Dollars per month as and for the support and maintenance of Wife and the minor child of the parties hereto, commencing forthwith and continuing in a like sum each and every month thereafter.'

Paragraph 18 provided in part: '* * * this agreement is intended to be, and is, a full, final and complete settlement of the property rights of the parties hereto and of all claims which either party has or might claim to have had against the other, were it not for this agreement. * * *'

Paragraph 19 provided: 'This agreement can be modified, cancelled, or rescinded only by a written agreement for that purpose, executed by the parties hereto. * * *'

In Messenger v. Messenger, 46 Cal. 2d 619, 297 P.2d 988, 993, we held that when 'the parties have clearly expressed their 'purpose of fixing and adjusting their personal and property rights,' have provided that the provision for alimony is 'for and in consideration of the permanent and lasting division and settlement of all their property rights of every kind and nature,' and the wife has waived 'all right to future maintenance and support * * *, except as herein otherwise expressly provided,' the conclusion is inescapable that they have made the provisions for support and maintenance an integral and inseparable part of their property settlement agreement. With such conclusive evidence of integration, the provisions for support and maintenance or alimony would be subject to modification only if the parties expressly so provided.' It is abundantly clear from the second whereas clause, the now therefore clause, and the first, fifth, and eighteenth paragraphs quoted above, that the agreement in the present case falls squarely within the foregoing rule.

Defendant contends, however, that the failure of the agreement to provide for the termination of the payments on the death of decedent or remarriage of plaintiff and the provision that the payments were to be subject to the approval of the court, compel the conclusion that the provision for monthly payments was for alimony. Accordingly, she concludes that it could be modified by the court and that the obligation it imposed terminated on decedent's death. If it appeared from other provisions that separable alimony payments were intended, the omission of termination dates could be explained, as defendant contends, on the theory that the payments would terminate on the death of decedent. See, Miller v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.2d 733, 737, 72 P.2d 868; Roberts v....