Fukuzaki v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 21 May 1981 |
Citation | 174 Cal.Rptr. 536,120 Cal.App.3d 454 |
Parties | Jimmie FUKUZAKI, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of California, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent, Masae FUKUZAKI, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 20223. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stephen James Wagner and Desmond, Miller, Desmond & Bartholomew, Sacramento, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Clarence D. Walters, Sacramento, for real party in interest.
By this petition for writ of mandate, petitioner (Jimmie) seeks to nullify an order of respondent court holding a marital settlement agreement provision for spousal support was modifiable.
Jimmie and Masae separated in 1967, after 16 years of marriage. The parties signed a marital settlement agreement on the 26th day of November 1971. The agreement contained a spousal support provision and a further statement that the agreement was to be merged in the judgment of marital dissolution. On July 25, 1980, Masae secured an order to show cause concerning modification of spousal support. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the court limited its initial hearing to the question of the right of the court to modify the spousal support award under the terms of the agreement. Following a hearing conducted virtually on briefs and an examination of the agreement, the court determined that it had jurisdiction to consider modification. This writ petition followed, and we issued our alternative writ.
Our resolution of the sole question presented is controlled by the provisions of Civil Code section 4811, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), and paragraphs 4, 8, 10, and 17 of the marital settlement agreement.
The provisions of Civil Code section 4811, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provide as follows:
The pertinent provisions of the settlement agreement provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Hufford, In re
...exception requirement of section 4811, subdivision (b) (id., at p. 874, 165 Cal.Rptr. 389). More recently, Fukuzaki v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 454, 174 Cal.Rptr. 536, discussed what language in an agreement was sufficiently specific to preclude judicial modification of spousal ......
-
Marriage of Forcum, In re
...case discussing what language is sufficiently specific to preclude modification of spousal support was Fukuzaki v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 454, 174 Cal.Rptr. 536. There the marital settlement agreement contained common boilerplate provisions that the purpose of the agreement wa......
-
In re the Marriage of Quock, A117767 (Cal. App. 9/30/2008), A117767
...enforceable only if they contain "some specific unequivocal language directly on the question of modification." (Fukuzaki v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 454, 458; see also In re Marriage of Jones (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 505, 510.) Here, the October 2002 order, which is based upon the......
-
Kelkar v. Kelkar (In re Kelkar)
...be modified if they contain a “specific” provision precluding modification. The line of cases exemplified by Fukuzaki v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 454, 174 Cal.Rptr. 536 construes the requirement of specificity narrowly, holding language such as the language in the agreement in t......