Kettering's Estate, In re

Decision Date17 December 1962
Docket NumberNo. 19920,19920
Citation376 P.2d 983
PartiesIn the Matter of the ESTATE of Charles Edgar KETTERING, Deceased. Miriam H. KETTERING, Sally Kettering, a Minor, by Miriam H. Kettering, her mother and next friend, and The Denver United States National Bank, Trustee, as Claimants in said Estate, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER, as Executor under the Will of Charles Edgar Kettering, Deceased, Defendant in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Robinson & Robinson, Thomas M. Sullivan, Laird Campbell, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Benjamin E. Sweet, Horace F. Phelps, Denver, for defendant in error.

PRINGLE, Justice.

Charles Edgar Kettering died on June 1, 1960. He had been married to Miriam H. Kettering, but difficulties arose between them. On April 20, 1950 they entered into a property settlement agreement and a divorce followed. The plaintiffs in error were claimants in the trial court against the estate, contending that certain payments specified in the property settlement agreement providing for the support and maintenance of the claimants survived the death of Kettering. The sole question before the trial court, and as presented here, is the interpretation of the property settlement agreement, and particularly whether the husband's obligation to make monthly payments for the support and maintenance of the wife and child survived his death. The sections of the agreement material to the problem before us are as follows:

5. 'For the support and maintenance of the wife and child, the husband agrees to pay to the wife so long as she shall reside in her present apartment * * * $266.25 per month * * * and after, the wife shall remove from said present abode the husband shall pay to her the sum of $333.75 per month, * * * provided, if the said child shall die, or shall attain the age of twenty-three years, and so long as the wife shall remain unmarried, the husband shall continue to pay to the wife * * * one-half of the monthly amounts above provided, so long as the wife may live and remain unmarried; provided, further, that if the wife should remarry prior to said child reaching the age of twenty-three years, then the husband shall pay to the wife * * * one-half of the total monthly payments * * *.'

6. Provides that if the 'fixed salary income of the husband shall, from time to time, or during any period, or periods, be increased, after deductions for withholding tax, social security and pension payments, $150.00 or more per month * * * then the husband shall pay 25% of such increase over said sum of $150.00'. It also provides that any outside income of the wife 'shall not affect the obligation of the husband to make the payments herein provided for.'

7. Provides for a $6,000.00 trust fund (thereafter created with the Denver United States National Bank as Trustee) to be established by the husband to guaranty the monthly payments by the husband 'in the event the husband defaults in making any payment required' and in the event of a claim of default provides for enforcement by 'Court or contempt action' and for the filing of counter-affidavits by the husband if the wife makes affidavit of default and furnishes such affidavits to the husband. Said fund is also to pay for medical and educational expenses of the child. If the child dies before her twenty-fourth birthday the fund is to be paid to the wife, but 'such payments shall not relieve the husband of the obligation to make the current monthly payments * * *'. Upon the child reaching twenty-four years of age the fund is to be paid to the wife and daughter in equal shares, but such payment 'shall not relieve the husband of the obligation to make the current monthly payments * * *.'

8. Provides that upon the death of the husband, if the husband has failed to make such provision in his Will, the sum of $10,000.00 shall be paid by his executor to the above trust, if still in existence.

9. Provides that, upon the death of the husband, if the above trust has ceased to exist, said $10,000.00 shall be paid by the executor to the wife.

10. Provides that the monthly payments provided for in paragraph 5 shall be considered as being one-half for the wife and one-half for the child with the wife to pay income taxes on the payments allocated to her and the husband to have the right to claim the child as a dependent.

12. Provides that 'the wife accepts the provisions herein made for her in lieu of any and all other claims, demands or provisions which might or could be made for her maintenance and support, and the wife also accepts the provisions herein made for her in lieu of any right to inherit from the husband by reason of the laws of descent and distribution of Colorado or any other jurisdiction, and in lieu of any claim for widow's allowance or any right of election to take against any Last Will and Testament of the husband, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to bar or prevent the wife from taking any devise or bequest made to her by the husband or prevent her from claiming the benefits provided in paragraphs 8 and 9, and provided further, nothing in this Agreement contained shall prevent or bar the wife from taking, as a direct or contingent beneficiary, the proceeds of any policy of insurance upon the life of the husband or under any life insurance trust now or hereafter established.'

18. 'Time is hereby declared to be of the essence of this agreement and all of the covenants, stipulations, provisions, agreements and promises herein contained shall, so far as appropriate, apply to, bind and be obligatory upon the heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors or assigns of the parties * * *'.

The executor filed a motion to dismiss the claim. Upon hearing, the trial court dismissed the claim, finding that the agreement did not provide for the payment of sums for the support and maintenance of the wife and child beyond the period of the husband's life and that the obligation to make such payments did not devolve upon the estate of the husband.

Ordinarily the obligation of a husband for the support and maintenance of a wife from whom he has separated ends with his death; but the rule is recognized in Colorado that a husband may by contract agree that such payments shall continue after his death and be payable from his estate, International Trust Co. v. Liebhardt, 111 Colo. 208, 139 P.2d 264, 147 A.L.R. 700. Such an agreement is enforceable if it expressly or by clear implication provides that the payments shall continue after the death of the husband, Cooke v. Cooke, 2 A.D.2d 128, 154 N.Y.S.2d 757, 762. See also Liebhardt, supra, where the agreement expressly provided that the executor should continue the payments after the husband's death.

The question posed then is: Does the agreement before us by express provision or by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • IN RE ESTATE OF LUNDAHL, 2-01-0508.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 16, 2002
    ...maintenance unless the marital judgment or settlement agreement unmistakably requires that result. See, e.g., In re Estate of Kettering, 151 Colo. 202, 376 P.2d 983, 986 (1962); O'Malley v. Pan American Bank of Orlando, N.A., 384 So.2d 1258, 1260 (Fla.1980); Dolvin v. Dolvin, 248 Ga. 439, 2......
  • Zaner v. City of Brighton, 95SC123
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1996
    ...by considering language in isolation when other relevant provisions cast doubt upon that interpretation. Cf. In re Estate of Kettering, 151 Colo. 202, 207, 376 P.2d 983, 986 (1962). We have previously recognized that article X, section 20, constitutes an example of the people exercising the......
  • In re Williams
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 2017
    ...like that used here, two cases predating the statute and applying similar common law principles are instructive— In re Estate of Kettering , 151 Colo. 202, 376 P.2d 983 (1962), and International Trust Co. v. Liebhardt , 111 Colo. 208, 139 P.2d 264 (1943).¶ 14 Under the common law, as under ......
  • In re Estate of Lundahl
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • July 16, 2002
    ...maintenance unless the marital judgment or settlement agreement unmistakably requires that result. See, e.g., In re Estate of Kettering, 376 P.2d 983, 986 (Colo. 1962); O'Malley v. Pan American Bank of Orlando, N.A., 384 So. 2d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 1980); Dolvin v. Dolvin, 248 Ga. 439, 284 S.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 16 - § 16.3 • SUBSTANTIVE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Wade/Parks Colorado Law of Wills, Trusts, and Fiduciary Administration (CBA) Chapter 16 Claims Against Estate
    • Invalid date
    ...that are not in prior classifications and include: • Support money or alimony under divorce or separation agreements, Estate of Kettering, 376 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1962); Hank v. Schuck, 353 P.2d 79 (Colo. 1960); International Trust Co. v. Liebhardt, 139 P.2d 264 (Colo. 1943); Estate of Lowell, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT