- 24 -
Petitioner testified that James Little told her on the
telephone that they could treat the payments at issue as child
support. James Little denied that he said that. Petitioner and
James Little communicated in writing when dealing with important
financial matters. We think it is highly unlikely that they
would have orally agreed to this change. We conclude that
petitioner and James Little did not orally modify the stipulation
re modification of judgment of dissolution.
Petitioners contend that the $4,000 per month payments at
issue were child support payments because the child support
payment requirements in the judgment of dissolution were not
changed by the stipulation re modification of judgment of
dissolution. We disagree.
The stipulation re modification of judgment of dissolution
provided that child support payments by James Little pursuant to
paragraph III(A) of the judgment of dissolution would terminate
on August 1, 1990. Thus, the stipulation re modification of
judgment of dissolution changed James Little's child support
requirements by ending his obligation to pay child support to
petitioner of $1,739 per month.
To reflect concessions and the foregoing,
Decision will be
entered under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Last modified: May 25, 2011