Hilton v. McNitt
| Decision Date | 17 September 1957 |
| Citation | 49 Cal.2d 79,315 P.2d 1 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ruth M. HILTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Rollin L. McNITT, as Executor of the Estate of Hal H. Hilton, Deceased, defendant and Appellant. L. A. 24528. |
Glenn R. Watson and Robert G. Beverly, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Edythe Jacobs, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment allowing and establshing a creditor's claim for $7,500 filed by Ruth M. Hilton against the estate of her deceased husband, Hal H. Hilton, based on a property settlement agreement entered into between them and on an award made in an interlocutory decree of divorce. The executor of the husband's estate, Rollin L. McNitt and the claimant both appeal. Mrs. Hilton's appeal is only on the denial of interest on her claim.
The major point involved on this appeal is the effect of the 1951 amendment to section 139 of the Civil Code. The portion of that amendment here involved provides, that 'Except as otherwise agreed by the arties in writing, the obligation of any party in any decree, judgment or order for the support and maintenance of the other party shall terminate upon the death of the obligor or upon the remarriage of the other party.'
In the case at bar the parties entered into a property settlement agreement on July 25, 1953, pending divorce proceedings to be commenced by Mrs. Hilton. The agreement provides that it is the mutual intention of the parties to effect a final and complete settlement of their respective property rights with reference to their marital status 'to each other.' The agreement also provides that 'Husband shall pay to wife for her support and maintenance $300 a month, payable on the first of each and every month commencing with the 1st day of August, 1953, and continuing until the first day of July, 1956.' Other provisions in the agreement divide among the parties certain properties owned by them, and paragraph X provides that 'Each of the parties in consideration of the agreements of the other herein expressed hereby waives, releases and relinquishes to the other all claims each may now have, or might hereafter otherwise acquire against the other, as husband or wife, or otherwise, arising out of the marital relation.' On the same day, the parties entered into a 'stipulation in re alimony, attorney fees, court costs, title and possession of property' in accord with the applicable provisions in the property settlement agreement and stipulated further that defendant was to pay plaintiff 'the sum of $300 per month, commencing on August 1, 1953, and continuing thereafter on each and every month, on the first day of such month until the first day of July, 1956.' On the stipulation was written 'Approved and so ordered' and the signature of the trial judge. On August 21, 1953, plaintiff was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce which provided that 'It is further ordered that defendant pay to the plaintiff the following sums: $300 per month commencing October 1st, 1953, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter until the 1st day of July, 1956. * * *'
Mr. Hilton died about July 25, 1954 and Mrs. Hilton remarried about September 18, 1954. Mrs. Hilton presented a creditor's claim for 25 monthly installements of $300 (a total of $7,500) beginning on July 1, 1954, under both the property settlement agreement and the interlocutory decree of divorce. The executor approved the claim to the extent of $300 for the support and maintenance due July 1, 1954, prior to Hilton's death, and rejected the balance of the claim because it was based on support and maintenance of Mrs. Hilton as the former wife of the decedent and that such right terminated with Hilton's death. Mrs. Hilton filed suit against the executor for the whole claim. The trial court held that the contract was an integrated and inseparable part of a property settlement agreement; that the monthly payments were installments in settlement of the parties' marital rights rather than payments for support and maintenance. It was concluded that the obligation for the monthly payments did not terminate upon the death of the decedent or on the remarriage of the wife.
The executor contends that an integrated property settlement agreement is subject to section 139 of the Civil Code as amended in 1951 and that provisions in a property settlement agreement or in a decree for support and maintenance terminate on death or remarriage unless there is a provision in the agreement or decree which negates the intention that the payments should so terminate. With this contention we agree.
The husband's obligation for support of a former wife is an obligation growing out of the marital relationship. This obligation for support would, without reference to any property settlement agreement, or decree of divorce, normally cease upon the husband's death subject only to the wife's rights under the community property laws of this state. In the event of a divorce and the wife's remarriage the obligation for her support would, normally, fall upon the then husband. Prior to 1951, section 139 of the Civil Code provided that upon the remarriage of the wife, the husband was no longer obligated for her support. This, then, was the announced public policy of this state prior to 1951. The 1951 Legislature amended section 139 so as to provide that unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, the obligation of any party in any decree, judgment, or order for the support and maintenance of the other party shall terminate upon the death of the obligor or the remarriage of the obligee. As was held in Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 125 Cal.App.2d 419, 424, 270 P.2d 1036, 1040, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Beach
...allowed but only when it is ordered paid. (Palmer v. Gregg (1967) 65 Cal.2d 657, 661, 56 Cal.Rptr. 97, 422 P.2d 985; Hilton v. McNitt (1957) 49 Cal.2d 79, 83, 315 P.2d 1.) An analogous principle precluded any award of interest on allowances of executor's compensation for a period during whi......
-
Chaney v. Chaney
...obligation ceases with the obligated party's death, absent a contrary statute or agreement by the parties. See, e.g., Hilton v. McNitt, 49 Cal.2d 79, 315 P.2d 1 (1957); Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975), cert. dis'd, 341 So.2d 292 (Fla.1976); Gordon v. Gordon, 335 So.2d 3......
-
Marriage of Nicolaides, In re
...1, 1970, section 139 was repealed and reenacted as Civil Code section 4801(b).) In support of his argument, husband cites Hilton v. McNitt, 49 Cal.2d 79, 315 P.2d 1 where the parties entered into a property settlement agreement which provided that the husband would pay $300 per month for su......
-
Marriage of Iberti, In re
...have agreed the education requirement would be subject to a good faith or reasonable ability qualification. (E.g., Hilton v. McNitt (1957) 49 Cal.2d 79, 82, 315 P.2d 1.) No such language was included. Further, it was undisputed wife dropped out of college as of May 1995. Under the plain lan......