- 31 -
annual payment provision is at odds with respondent’s contention
that the parties intended for the annual payments to qualify as
alimony in gross and not to terminate on the death of Ms.
Springer.
Respondent’s contention regarding trade or local usage is
inconsistent with the definition provided in Ball v. Ball, supra,
and with Kingery v. Kingery, supra, and Euler v. Euler supra.
Other than respondent’s unsupported allegations on brief, there
is nothing in the record to suggest that the marital settlement
was drafted with the intention of characterizing the annual
payments as alimony in gross and providing that the payments were
not to terminate on the death of Ms. Springer. To the contrary,
the particular facts of this case indicate that the annual
payments were an allowance for support and maintenance, not part
of a property settlement binding on petitioner after the death of
Ms. Springer.
IV. Conclusion
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective
arguments, and after reviewing the divorce documents and relevant
case law, we conclude that the terms of the divorce documents do
provide that there would have been no liability to make the
annual payments for any period after the death of Ms. Springer.
Assuming that the divorce documents did not provide for
termination of the annual payments on the death of Ms. Springer,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011