-28-
decree, he did not read it or check it for clerical errors.
Therefore, petitioner paid Ms. Zurn $1,000 per month, the amount
they each believed to be the correct amount. Petitioner
discovered that the divorce decree reflected $1, as opposed to
the $1,000 per month, at the time he was being audited by
respondent's agent. Thereafter, petitioner and Ms. Zurn
stipulated the entry of an order correcting the original decree
nunc pro tunc during September 1992. The stipulation and order,
which was subscribed by a California Superior Court judge and
filed during 1992, amended the original order to reflect monthly
payments of $1,000 instead of $1. Petitioner paid Ms. Zurn
$1,000 per month during 1985 through 1989.
At the time of the divorce, petitioner and Ms. Zurn jointly
owned several rental properties. The titles for those properties
remained joint in order to provide Ms. Zurn with security
concerning the $1,000 payments to be made over 15 years. In
addition, during 1978, petitioner provided Ms. Zurn with a note
for an amount in excess of $100,000 as security for the $1,000
payments. After the 15-year period, the properties were to vest
in petitioner. As of the time of trial, Ms. Zurn continued to
receive $1,000 monthly payments and remained a joint owner in the
properties, even though the 15-year period had concluded. The
$1,000 payments have been made from income of the jointly held
properties, both during and after the 15-year payment period.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011