Hall v. Hall
Citation | 105 Colo. 227,97 P.2d 415 |
Decision Date | 13 November 1939 |
Docket Number | 14620. |
Parties | HALL v. HALL. |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1939.
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry A. Hicks Judge.
Divorce proceeding by George N. Hall against Irene Hall wherein a decree of absolute divorce was granted defendant on her cross-complaint. On petition of the plaintiff, the property settlement agreement and trust agreement embodied in the decree was canceled, and the decree modified and defendant brings error.
Reversed with directions.
Albert J. Gould, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Omar E Garwood and Milton C. Garwood, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
This controversy involves the extent of the exercise of judicial authority to cancel and set aside a property settlement and trust agreement entered into between husband and wife, in connection with and growing out of divorce proceedings. December 28, 1931, defendant in error, hereinafter designated as plaintiff, filed complaint in divorce against plaintiff in error, to whom we hereinafter refer as defendant, praying for a decree of absolute divorce. December 29, 1931, defendant filed her answer and cross complaint alleging cruelty, and also praying for a decree of absolute divorce. March 4, 1932 the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of defendant, paragraph 4 thereof reading as follows: 'That the plaintiff and defendant have entered into a property settlement agreement, which has been exhibited to the Court and which the Court finds to be fair and equitable.' The mentioned agreement was executed by the parties the day preceding the entry of the court's findings, the portions thereof pertinent to the controversy herein being as follows:
'Whereas the parties hereto are husband and wife and certain irreconcilable differences have arisen between the parties hereto making it absolutely impossible for them to live together and said parties have determined that it is to their best interests that they live separate and apart from each other, and that they by the terms thereof, determine, settle and adjust forever all property rights arising out of said marriage;
* * *
* * *
'1. Said husband shall and simultaneously with the execution hereof has created a trust for the benefit of said wife to become operative on February 7, 1934, when said husband becomes twnety-five (25) years of age. A copy of said trust agreement with the Worcester Bank & Trust Company of Worcester, Massachusetts, as trustee, is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 'A.'
* * *
* * *
'8. The wife in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual covenants herein contained hereby waives, releases, foregoes, and disclaims, all her rights in any and all property, both real, personal and mixed wheresoever situate, of which her husband is or may become seized or possessed, and hereby expressly waives all right to inherit from said husband under the laws of any and all states of the United States and foreign countries, and hereby agrees that husband shall have the right to dispose of his property of any kind by will, and in case husband fails to dispose of this property of any kind by will, then said property shall descend to his legal heirs other than wife, and she shall not inherit anything from him.
The same date plaintiff entered into a trust agreement (exhibit A) with the Worcester Bank & Trust Company, of Worcester, Massachusetts, in which plaintiff is donor, the trust company is trustee and defendant is donee, the pertinent parts thereof reading as follows:
September 26, 1932, the court entered its final decree of divorce, the last paragraph of which is as follows:
'And it is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court that this Court retains jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and the parties thereto for the purpose of enforcing the property settlement agreement and any and all the terms thereof heretofore entered into between the plaintiff and defendant and referred to in the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore entered herein.'
December 6, 1938, plaintiff filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goggans v. Osborn
...634. 9 Schwartz v. Durham, 1938, 52 Ariz. 256, 80 P.2d 453. 10 Hagen v. Hagen, 1951, 193 Or. 369, 238 P.2d 747. 11 Hall v. Hall, 1939, 105 Colo. 227, 97 P. 2d 415; Belting v. Marschner, 1928, 245 Mich. 111, 222 N.W. 12 Parker v. Parker, 1924, 193 Cal. 478, 225 P. 447. 13 Puckett v. Puckett,......
-
Engle v. Superior Court In and For San Joaquin County
...is not subject to modification by this or any other court, Zlaten v. Zlaten, 117 Colo. 296, 298-299, 186 P.2d 583; Hall v. Hall, 105 Colo. 227, 235-239, 97 P.2d 415; cf. Dexter v. Dexter, 42 Cal.2d 36, 40, 265 P.2d 873, and the crucial question presented to the trial court in the present ca......
-
In re Marriage of Ebel
...must be sought or it is waived); In re Marriage of Boyd, 643 P.2d 804, 805 (Colo.App.1982)(same); see Hall v. Hall, 105 Colo. 227, 97 P.2d 415 (1939)(to maintain jurisdiction over maintenance after a final judgment, court must enter an award of maintenance at the time of permanent orders); ......
-
Stovall v. Crosby, 22296
...was proper. To hold otherwise, would permit the trial court to impair the contract between plaintiff and the defendant. In Hall v. Hall, 105 Colo. 227, 97 P.2d 415, the divorced parties entered into a property settlement agreement which was incorporated into the divorce decree. One party la......