Fox v. Fox
| Decision Date | 08 January 1954 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | FOX v. FOX. L. A. 22431. |
Wright, Wright, Green & Wright, Lloyd Wright, Charles A. Loring and Dudley K. Wright, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stahlman & Cooper and Wallace E. Wolfe, Los Angeles, for respondent.
In 1947, plaintiff filed an action for divorce against defendant on the ground of extreme cruelty and prayed for a division of the community property and alimony. Thereafter the parties executed a separation agreement, and plaintiff amended her complaint to allege that by the terms of the agreement 'all of the community property and rights therein and rights of support have been adjusted, settled and compromised.' She prayed that 'the Court approve and incorporate in the decree the terms of that certain Agreement and Property Settlement made, executed and entered into by the Plaintiff and Defendant on the 13th day of April, 1948, and require by the terms of its decree that the Defendant comply with the terms in said decree for him to be performed.' Defendant defaulted, and an interlocutory decree was entered approving the agreement and expressly incorporating the provisions for the payment of alimony, which defendant was ordered to perform. The final decree was entered one year later. In 1952, plaintiff petitioned the court to increase the monthly payments from $400 to $700 per month on the ground of changed circumstances and requested attorney fees for presenting her motion. After a hearing the court entered its order increasing the monthly payments to $500 per month and awarding $100 attorney fees, and defendant has appealed.
Defendant contends that, although the monthly payments were labeled alimony both in the agreement and in the decree based thereon, it is clear from an examination of the agreement as a whole that the provision for them was an integral part of a property settlement agreement and may not therefore be modified. We agree with this contention.
In their agreement the parties recited that they desired finally to settle all of their property rights and stated that 'in consideration of the premises and of the covenants, agreements, releases, waivers and transfers herein made and herein agreed to be made by the parties hereto, one to the other, it has been and is hereby agreed between the parties as follows: * * *
'Third: It is understood and agreed that this settlement is to obtain at all times between the parties hereto regardless of any change in the marital relations between them and the happening of any other event shall not abrogate or affect this instrument.
'Fourth: Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as precluding either party from bringing or defending or appearing in any suit for divorce, and in the event a divorce be granted to either party, this agreement may be incorporated in and become a part of any such decree of divorce entered. * * *
'Sixth: Husband agrees to pay to the wife, as alimony, the sum of four hundred dollars ($400) per month, commencing May 12th, 1948, and continuing thereafter to and including the month of December, 1953, (except as otherwise herein provided) at which time all obligation on the part of the husband to make the aforesaid or any other payments to the wife for her support shall thereupon terminate.'
The agreement then provided that payments for the support of the wife should terminate if she should remarry before December 31, 1953, and that after her remarriage or December 31, 1953, whichever occurred earlier, the husband should pay her $100 per month for the support of each of the two minor children of the parties. It also provided that if the husband's United States disability pension should be reduced, the support payments should be reduced $3.33 for each $10 reduction in the pension. In no event, however, was the wife to receive less than $200 per month.
The seventh, eighth, and ninth paragraphs provided for a detailed division of the community property, including the payment of $8,000 cash to the wife, and adjusted rights with respect to insurance policies and a retirement fund.
The tenth paragraph provided: 'Husband agrees to pay Blanche & Fueller, attorneys for the wife, as their attorneys' fees, the sum of three hundred dollars ($300) of which amount one hundred fifty dollars ($150) shall be payable upon the execution of this agreement by the parties hereto and the remaining one hundred fifty dollars ($150) of which shall be payable on or before ninety (90) days from date hereof. In consideration of the agreement of the husband to pay the aforesaid fees, the wife hereby agrees that in any action for divorce or separate maintenance between the parties hereto, whether the same be now pending or hereafter commenced, she will not make application for or seek to require the payment of any attorneys' fees whatsoever by the husband and that she will likewise pay such costs of suit involved in any such action herself and shall not call upon the husband to pay any part thereof.
'The wife further agrees that she will not, in any such action, apply for or seek from the husband any payment of alimony or support money for the children of the parties except in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.'
In this case, as in Dexter v. Dexter, Cal.Sup., 265 P.2d 873, it is clear that the provisions for the support and maintenance of plaintiff are an integral and inseverable part of the property settlement agreement of the parties. The parties stated that they desired to effect a final settlement that would 'obtain at all times between' them and expressly provided that the agreement was made in consideration of 'the premises, and of the covenants, agreements, releases, waivers, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Levy
...by the trial judge. (See Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 866, 44 Cal.Rptr 767, 402 P.2d 839; Fox v. Fox (1954) 42 Cal.2d 49, 52, 265 P.2d 881.) The applicable rules are set forth in Plumer v. Plumer (1957) 48 Cal.2d 820, at pages 824--825, 313 P.2d 549, at pages 552......
-
Wikle v. Boyd
...the "integrated bargain" without the consent of both parties. SeePlumer v. Plumer, 48 Cal. 2d 820, 313 P.2d 549 (1957) ; Fox v. Fox, 42 Cal. 2d 49, 265 P.2d 881 (1954) ; Movius v. Movius, 163 Mont. 463, 517 P.2d 884 (1974).’ " DuValle v. DuValle, 348 So. 2d [1067,] 1069 [ (Ala. Civ. App. 19......
-
Garrett v. Garrett
...a property settlement agreement is integrated is one of law. (Messenger v. Messenger, 46 Cal.2d 619, 626, 297 P.2d 988; Fox v. Fox, 42 Cal.2d 49, 52--53, 265 P.2d 881; Biagi v. Biagi, 233 Cal.App.2d 624, 628, 43 Cal.Rptr. 707.) The intent of the parties, as manifested in the written agreeme......
-
Diener v. McBeth (In re Diener)
...480 P.2d at 331;Cont'l Baking Co., 67 Cal.Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d at 895;Flynn v. Flynn, 42 Cal.2d 55, 265 P.2d 865 (1954); Fox v. Fox, 42 Cal.2d 49, 265 P.2d 881 (1954); Barham v. Barham, 33 Cal.2d 416, 202 P.2d 289 (1949); Hayter Trucking, Inc., 22 Cal.Rptr.2d at 237;Estate of Butler, 205 Cal......