- 11 -
330 P.2d 947, 952 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958) (holding that a
trial court had the authority, pursuant to a minute order, to
direct payment of permanent alimony commencing at a date earlier
than the effective date of a decree of divorce). As an order,
the Minute Order and attached Tentative Decision was binding on
the parties even though it was subject to modification or
termination by the court and did not constitute a judgment. See
City of Los Angeles v. Oliver, 283 P. 298, 309 (Cal. Dist. Ct.
App. 1929).
Section 1007 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (West
1980) provides that "Whenever an order for the payment of a sum
of money is made by a Court, pursuant to the provisions of this
Code, it may be enforced by execution in the same manner as if it
were a judgment." (Emphasis added.) In Shields v. Shields, 130
P.2d 982, 983 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1942), the court held that
this section applies to orders for the payment of alimony. See
also Mathews v. Mathews, 193 P. 586, 587 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App.
1920) (holding that a provision in an interlocutory judgment of
divorce for the payment of certain alimony, though subject to
modification, need not be expressly carried into the final decree
to be enforceable).
Based on the above discussion, we hold that the Minute Order
and Tentative Decision constitutes a valid support decree for
purposes of section 71(b)(2)(C), and therefore qualifies as a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011