- 10 - the payments at issue were not for the support and maintenance of Ms. Croteau within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code sec. 4801(b), but were for the division of the community property of petitioner and Ms. Croteau. Petitioner attempts to disavow the agreement. He claims that he and Ms. Croteau intended that the payments at issue were to be for the support of Ms. Croteau and that they did not intend that such payments were to be for the division of their community property. On the record before us, we shall not allow petitioner to disavow the agreement into which he and Ms. Croteau entered.6 5(...continued) The parties warrant and declare under penalty of perjury that the assets and liabilities divided in this agreement constitute all their community and quasi-community assets and liabilities. In the event that the division is un- equal, the parties knowingly and intelligently waive an equal distribution of the community property. The portion of the agreement entitled "EQUALIZATION PAYMENT" stated: In the interest of fairness, and in consideration of the manner in which the property was divided, husband shall pay to wife the following sums as a division of the community property. Husband agrees to pay $1000.00 per month begin- ning on April 1st, 1993 and ending on April 1st, 1995. He also shall pay wife $15,000.00 for moving expenses also due April 1st, 1993. Husband also agrees to pay health insur- ance for wife and any auto repairs or maintenance on the aforementioned vehicles or other necessities from January 1st, 1993 through December 31, 1993, not to exceed $10,000.00 total. 6 Under California law, the agreement is a contract which is governed by the same principles applicable to contracts gener- ally. See In re Marriage of Hasso, 280 Cal. Rptr. 919, 922 (Cal. (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011