From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Clark

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 1, 1999
94 Wn. App. 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

reasoning that an integration clause in a property agreement which did not delineate the parties' obligations with respect to support for a child did not bar enforcement of a separate agreement addressing the support issue

Summary of this case from Dorsey v. Northern Life Insurance Co.

Opinion

No. 41798-3-I.

March 1, 1999. UNREPORTED OPINION

Appeal from the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-2-13137-7, William L. Downing, J., entered November 5, 1997.


Reversed by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Agid, A.C.J., and Coleman, J.


Summaries of

Clark v. Clark

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 1, 1999
94 Wn. App. 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

reasoning that an integration clause in a property agreement which did not delineate the parties' obligations with respect to support for a child did not bar enforcement of a separate agreement addressing the support issue

Summary of this case from Dorsey v. Northern Life Insurance Co.
Case details for

Clark v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES L. CLARK, Appellant , v. LINDA J. CLARK, as Personal…

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Mar 1, 1999

Citations

94 Wn. App. 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)
94 Wash. App. 1022

Citing Cases

URS Corp. v. Transpo Grp., Inc.

While CreditSights relied on New York State law, Washington law is similar in that it requires inter alia a…

Dorsey v. Northern Life Insurance Co.

Therefore, the sales agreements may be found to be incomplete and, hence, only partially integrated. If…