- 22 -
clause. Thus, the payments at issue meet all of the requirements
for alimony. Sec. 71(b)(1).
Petitioners contend that James Little was required to
continue the payments through January 31, 1992, even if
petitioner or James Little died before that date. We disagree.
The stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution did
not modify the provision in the judgment of dissolution that
spousal support payments were to terminate when petitioner or
James Little died.
Petitioners assert that James Little's testimony shows that
the stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution had
that effect. We disagree. James Little said:
Q * * * As part of your understanding of
the modification agreement, do you think that your
obligation to pay the $4,000 a month would have
terminated, had Mrs. Hill died prior to January 31st
of 1992? Do you still have the agreement?
A Uh-huh.
Q Do you need a copy?
A I would have assumed so. We probably would
have had to go back to court, but I would have assumed
it would have stopped.
Q But you're not saying that from anything
you find in the modification agreement; you're just
assuming?
A Yes.
Q What do you assume would have happened to
those $4,000 a month payments had Christina died before
January 31st, 1992?
A Nothing.
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