Taliaferro v. Taliaferro

• Decision Date: 21 April 1960
• Citation: 180 Cal.App.2d 159,4 Cal.Rptr. 696
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Eugene A. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dorothy TALIAFERRO aka Finn aka Davis, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 18569.

Page 696

4 Cal.Rptr. 696

180 Cal.App.2d 159

Eugene A. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dorothy TALIAFERRO aka Finn aka Davis, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 18569.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

April 21, 1960.

Eugene A. Taliaferro, in pro. per.

Frisbie & Hoogs, by W. H. Hoogs, Berkeley, for respondent.

DOOLING, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal after demurrer sustained to his second amended complaint. By his complaint in two counts he sought in count one to set aside the property settlement agreement with his former wife, which we construed in Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 125 Cal.App.2d 419, 270 P.2d 1036, on the ground of mistake and also to set aside the interlocutory and final decrees of divorce. In count two he attempted to have declared void an order of the court of September 16, 1949 which set aside an earlier order modifying said property settlement agreement.

In Taliaferro, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d 419, 270 P.2d 1036, we held that by the terms of this property settlement agreement, as modified by the parties, appellant was bound to pay his wife for life, despite her remarriage, $200 per month.

By the first count of his second amended complaint appellant attempts to have set aside in equity both the interlocutory and final decrees of divorce and the property settlement agreement on the ground of mistake, the allegation as to mistake being that he was advised by his lawyer and believed acting on such advice at the time that he executed the property settlement agreement 'that the support provisions * * * would terminate upon the remarriage of the defendant herein and at the very latest date would terminate upon the emancipation of the daughters * * *' He further alleges that he did not learn that the advice of his attorney in this respect was mistaken until June 18, 1958 when the trial court denied a motion to modify the support agreement. The court sustained a demurrer to this complaint without leave to amend as to both counts on the doctrine of res judicata and as to count one on the additional ground that no facts sufficiently justifying failure to discover the mistake are alleged.

We must agree with appellant that our decision in Taliaferro, supra, is not res judicata of the question of mistake. In that case we said, 125 Cal.App.2d at pages 425-426, 270 P.2d at pages 1040-1041: 'Appellant has by his cross-complaint sought * * * a determination by the court as to what his rights and duties are under the terms of the property settlement agreement. He did not ask reformation of the contract. He did not claim that the contract mistakenly expressed an intent different than that agreed upon. He did not attack the validity of it in any way * * *'

It is obvious from this express language of our former opinion that the question of mistake here sought to be litigated was in no way involved in that case and that nothing which we there determined can be res judicata of the question presented by count one of the complaint herein.

The other ground however is good. We did expressly hold in Taliaferro, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at page 424 et seq., 270 P.2d at page 1040 et seq., that under the property settlement the remarriage of the wife in 1947 to Louis Finn did not terminate her right to receive the payments provided for in the property settlement agreement. That decision became final in July, 1954. By that decision appellant was advised of the true construction of his agreement and cannot, in the face of that decision, avoid the notice which it gave him that the rights of the wife did not terminate on remarriage. In the face of those undisputed facts the court was entitled to disregard his allegation that he did not discover his mistake until 1958, particularly in view of the fact that he expressly referred in his pleading to our decision in Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, supra.

A party seeking to set aside a contract 'must rescind promptly, upon discovering the facts which entitle him to rescind.' Civ.Code § 1691. 'There have been many cases in which delays for much shorter periods than a year have been held to be fatal to the right to rescind.' Estrada v. Alvarez, 38 Cal.2d 386, 391, 240 P.2d 278, 281. Appellant's delay from 1954 when this court's construction of the property settlement...