- 10 -
contains a careful division of the marital assets, including an
agreement that John would receive “all of the stock in * * * [Sea
Supreme] as his sole and separate property”. It would be
illogical to suppose that the Parties intended the spousal
support payments to Carol to be a disguised form of property
payments.
The Agreement recites that “Each party is aware of the right
of each party to receive spousal support from the other party
based upon the relative income and needs of the parties and the
duration of the marriage”. (There is a presumption under
California law that a marriage of 10 years or more is a marriage
of “long duration”. Cal. Fam. Law Code sec. 4336 (West 2004).)
The Agreement contains under SPOUSAL SUPPORT a carefully detailed
spelling out of the Parties’ respective rights and obligations
with regard to spousal support. There is nothing in the
Agreement that would lead one to conclude, either by express
statement or inferentially, that the payments in question are
intended as anything other than support payments.
By the same token there is nothing in the Agreement to
suggest that John’s payments to Carol are periodic installments
on an overall lump-sum obligation. No lump-sum amount is
referred to anywhere in the Agreement, nor is there any basis for
inferring that such exists. We therefore reject petitioner’s
arguments on this point.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011