Opinion
Page 533f
107 Cal.App.4th 533f ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ In re the Marriage of GLENDA HILL and EDWARD JOHN CESNALIS. GLENDA HILL CESNALIS, Respondent, v. EDWARD JOHN CESNALIS, Appellant. C040828 California Court of Appeal, Third District April 7, 2003[Modification of opinion (106 Cal.App.4th 1267; 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 436) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
This modification requires the movement of text affecting pages 1273-1277 of the bound volume report.
OPINION
Before Davis, Acting P. J., Raye, J., and Callahan, J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 12, 2003, and reported in the Official Reports (106 Cal.App.4th 1267) be modified as follows:
Opinion on page 1273, following the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads, "As we shall explain, the written agreement here comes down on the Steele and Sherman side of things," insert a footnote reference for footnote 1 following the period. Footnote 1 shall read as follows:
1As noted above, we refer to Steele and Sherman only with respect to the specific wording of their spousal support provisions. We realize that these two cases also involved the now outdated concept of integrating spousal support and property division provisions rather than having spousal support provisions remain independent. (See Glasser, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at pp. 151-152; In re Marriage of Nicolaides (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 192 [114 Cal.Rptr. 56]; Rheuban v. Rheuban (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 552 [47 Cal.Rptr. 884].) The integration concept is irrelevant here.
Moreover, as we explain, the process by which Edward and Glenda drafted Paragraph 4 involved some unique facts on the issue of remarriage. These facts distinguish this case from the general concerns regarding the clarity required for retaining spousal support jurisdiction expressed in In re Marriage of Vomacka (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459 [204 Cal.Rptr. 568]. This is not a Vomacka case.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.