- 7 -
husband which indicate that it was merely a coincidence that the
alimony payments terminated within 6 months of Julie’s 18th
birthday.
We agree with respondent that the presumption that the
payments are child support is overcome by evidence that the
termination of the payments to petitioner was determined
independently of any contingency relating to petitioner and
Mr. Shepherd’s children.
The settlement agreement provides for alimony payments for a
term of 10 years and makes no reference to Julie’s 18th birthday
in its alimony provision. Likewise, the proposed offers in
settlement from petitioner’s attorney, which preceded the final
settlement agreement, make no reference to the parties’ two
children in their proposed alimony provisions. The settlement
offers suggest that the only disputed term of the alimony
payments was their amount and not the period of time over which
the payments would occur.
Moreover, there is no evidence of any discussion between the
parties of Julie’s 18th birthday in conjunction with the
negotiation of alimony payments. Mr. Shepherd’s divorce counsel
testified that he was “absolutely positive” there was never any
discussion that alimony would terminate on the 18th birthday of
either of the parties’ two children. He further testified that
the 10-year term of alimony was requested when negotiations first
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011