- 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