Plumer v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 18 November 1957 |
| Citation | 317 P.2d 995 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Everett T. PLUMER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, and Margaret L. Plumer, Real Party in Interest.* Civ. 22554. |
James E. West, Jr., and Steven Edmondson, Santa Monica, for petitioner.
Hahn, Ross & Saunders and E. Loyd Saunders, Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
In this proceeding in certiorari, petitioner seeks annulment of an order of the respondent court vacating the suspension of a sentence for contempt for his failure to make certain payments for the support of his former wife and his child in accordance with the provisions of a judgment of divorce.
On September 22, 1954, petitioner and his former wife entered into an agreement 'to effect a final and complete settlement of their respective property rights, support, alimony and custody of their child with reference to their marital status and to each other.' Paragraph eight of the agreement obligates the petitioner to pay to his former wife $200 a month 'for the support, maintenance, education, care and custody of said child until he shall reach the age of majority.' Paragraph nine provides that the petitioner shall pay to his former wife an additional $200 a month 'as alimony for her support and maintenance * * *.' In paragraph twenty-three each party releases the other from all present and future claims and rights to support, separate maintenance, alimony, court costs, attorneys' fees, and all property rights of any kind except as provided for in the agreement. Other provisions of the agreement deal with the division of marital property, the payment of debts, future education of the child, and termination and modification of the support provisions.
On November 1, 1954, an interlocutory judgment of divorce was entered in favor of the plaintiff-wife, approving the agreement and ordering the petitioner, in accordance with the terms thereof, to pay $200 a month for the support of the minor child of the parties. On September 28, 1955, the petitioner was found guilty of contempt in failing to comply with the order for alimony and child support and was sentenced to five days in the county jail. The jail sentence was ordered suspended on condition that he maintain current the subsequently accruing payments and make an additional payment of $10 a month to apply on the arrearage, the amount of which was stipulated.
On December 21, 1955, pursuant to application of the petitioner, an order to show cause was issued why the payments for the support of his former wife and the child should not be reduced on the ground that his income has substantially decreased. At the hearing thereof the wife moved to dismiss the order to show cause on the grounds that the payments were ordered pursuant to an integrated property settlement agreement and could be reduced only in conformity with the provisions of the agreement relating to modification and that these did not encompass a decrease in petitioner's income as a basis for modification. After referring the matter to a commissioner, who found in the wife's favor, the court dismissed the order to show cause. Petitioner appealed, contending that the agreement was not integrated and, that if it was, a material reduction in his income was a ground for modification within the express provisions of the agreement. On July 10, 1957, the Supreme Court reversed the order dismissing petitioner's application for modification. The Court held (Plumer v. Plumer, 48 Cal.2d 820, 313 P.2d 549) that the property settlement agreement between the parties was clearly integrated but that the order for support based thereon was subject to modification in accordance with the express terms of the agreement and that, under the terms thereof, a material reduction in petitioner's income was a ground for modification of the order for support of his former wife and his child.
During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner returned to court several times for the purpose of determining his compliance with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Power, 159 C.A.2d Supp. 869 (Conn. App. 4/4/1958), Crim. A. No. 221586.
...criminal in their nature. (Bradley v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 509 .) This was followed by the case of Plumer v. Superior Court, * (Cal.App.) 317 P.2d 995, and especially in regard to the obligation of a parent to support his children which is based upon the provisions of an integrated pro......
-
People v. Power, 221586
...quasi criminal in their nature. Bradley v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 509, 310 P.2d 634. This was followed by the case of Plumer v. Superior Court, Cal.App., 317 P.2d 995, * and especially in regard to the obligation of a parent to support his children which is based upon the provisions of a......