- 13 -
relating to the October 15, 1990, through December 31, 1991,
payments, however, shall not be disturbed.
In determining whether petitioner’s payments were made
pursuant to a “written separation instrument”, we need only look
to when the payments were made. We consider those payments made
pursuant to the MTA (whether made before or after the Superior
Court adopted the MTA as an Order of the Court) and Modified MTA
as having been made pursuant to written separation instruments,
because those instruments satisfy the requirements stated in
section 71(b)(2). On the other hand, those payments for the
January 1 through February 4, 1990, period (about $2,000) were
not made pursuant to any instrument and, therefore, do not
satisfy the section 71(b)(1)(A) requirement.
Termination Upon Death
Keeping in mind that petitioner made payments pursuant to
two separate instruments (i.e., those made pursuant to the MTA
and those made pursuant to the Modified MTA),6 we now must decide
whether, under section 71(b)(1)(D), petitioner’s payments were
set to terminate upon the death of Ms. Wells. Neither the MTA
nor the Modified MTA specifically states whether the above was to
occur. We, therefore, must look to California law to determine
whether a postdeath legal obligation existed, as State law
6 The following discussion pertains only to those payments
made for the period beginning with Feb. 5, 1990.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011