- 17 -
he considered Christina's 18th birthday. Petitioner said that
she considered Christina's 18th birthday. Neither petitioner nor
James Little testified that they discussed Christina's birthday
with each other. The stipulation re modification of judgment of
dissolution does not say that the parties considered Christina's
18th birthday. We conclude that the fact that January 31, 1992,
was within 6 months of Christina's 18th birthday was a
coincidence, and was not a contingency related to Christina.
Thus, the payments at issue are not presumed to be child support.
Our conclusion is consistent with the labels used by the
parties in the written agreement. The stipulation re
modification of judgment of dissolution states: "In the event
that Petitioner remarries prior to August 30, 1990, the spousal
support shall be reduced to $4,000 per month and shall continue
through January 31, 1992." The parties agreed to end child
support payments made by James Little.
The stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution
states: "All child support payments by * * * [Little] shall
terminate on August 1, 1990." Petitioner was represented by
counsel who reviewed the document and said it was alright for
petitioner to sign it. Christina lived with James Little when he
and petitioner negotiated the stipulation re modification of
judgment of dissolution. The words petitioner and James Little
chose fit the substance of the arrangement that existed at the
time.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011