- 25 -
analogous to this case, we think a more instructive case is In re
Marriage of Benjamins, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 313 (Ct. App. 1994).
That case involved a payor spouse’s obligation under a marital
settlement agreement (the terms of which were incorporated in the
divorce decree) to pay the payee spouse, on or before September
1, 1991, an amount equal to her medical insurance premium for the
1-year period commencing on that date. Although the payee spouse
died in April 1991, her daughter, as successor in interest,
demanded payment of the premium amount ($13,140) under threat of
legal action. The payor spouse paid the premium amount and then
petitioned the court for reimbursement. The court held for the
payor spouse, reasoning that the obligation was in the nature of
spousal support which, pursuant to Family Code section 4337,
terminated at the payee spouse’s death. Id. at 317.
We believe a California court would similarly reject any
attempt by Carmen’s successor in interest (e.g., her estate) to
enforce petitioner’s family support obligation for any period
after Carmen’s death. Family support quite simply consists of
spousal support and child support, and it is well settled under
California law that a child support obligation runs to the child
and not to the payee spouse. In re Marriage of Comer, 59 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 155, 160 (1996); see also Keith G. v. Suzanne H., 72
Cal. Rptr. 2d 525, 529 (Ct. App. 1998); In re Marriage of McCann,
32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639, 642 (Ct. App. 1994); Hogoboom & King, Cal.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011