" (2) When, as here, no conflicting extrinsic evidence is offered of an interpretation as to which the language of a marital settlement agreement is reasonably susceptible, and the facts are otherwise undisputed, we apply the unambiguous contract terms to the undisputed facts as a matter of law. ( Messenger v. Messenger (1956) 46 Cal.2d 619, 626 [ 297 P.2d 988]; Fox v. Fox (1954) 42 Cal.2d 49, 52 [ 265 P.2d 881]; Lucas v. Elliot (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 746]; Estate of Butler (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 311, 317 [ 252 Cal.Rptr. 210]; In re Marriage of Williams (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 368, 377 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 406].) Marital settlement agreements incorporated into a dissolution judgment are construed under the statutory rules governing the interpretations of contracts generally.
Unless interpretation turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence, an appellate court is not bound by the trial court's construction but makes an independent determination of the meaning of the writing. ( Ibid.; see Lucas v. Elliott (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 746].) 2. Legal Framework
O.G.'s argument raises statutory and contract interpretation questions. Both are subject to our de novo review. (See County of Tulare v. Campbell (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 847, 850 ["questions relating to the interpretation of statutes are matters of law for the reviewing court"]; Lucas v. Elliot (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892 (Lucas) ["the interpretation of a contract or other written instrument is a question of law if there is no extrinsic evidence thereon"].) Beginning with the relevant statutory provisions, Family Code section 150 defines " 'Support' " as an "obligation owing on behalf of a child, spouse, or family," which, "when used with reference to a minor child . . . includes maintenance and education."
Likewise, “the interpretation of a contract or other written instrument is a question of law if there is no extrinsic evidence thereon or if the evidence is without conflict and is not susceptible of conflicting inferences.” (Lucas v. Elliott (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 (Lucas ).) So too, “[t]he question of the trial court's jurisdiction is a pure question of law subject to our independent review.”
Had he not purchased life insurance, the obligation would have been chargable against his estate. (E.g., Lucas v. Elliot (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 746] [breach of martial settlement agreement to provide life insurance].) Husband could not do an end-run around the order by purchasing an inferior policy and committing suicide.
Id. (citing Cal. Civ.Code § 1638, which provides: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”); Lucas v. Elliott, 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 (1992); In re Marriage of Zlatnik, 197 Cal.App.3d 1284, 243 Cal.Rptr. 454 (1988); Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law § 9.123, pp. 9–30 to 9–32 (The Rutter Group 1997). “Extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions is inadmissible to vary, alter, or add to the terms of an unambiguous agreement.” Id. (citing CCP § 1856; Tahoe Nat'l Bank, 92 Cal.Rptr. 704, 480 P.2d at 331;Cont'l Baking Co., 67 Cal.Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d at 895;Flynn v. Flynn, 42 Cal.2d 55, 265 P.2d 865 (1954); Fox v. Fox, 42 Cal.2d 49, 265 P.2d 881 (1954); Barham v. Barham, 33 Cal.2d 416, 202 P.2d 289 (1949); Hayter Trucking, Inc., 22 Cal.Rptr.2d at 237;Estate of Butler, 205 Cal.App.3d 311, 252 Cal.Rptr. 210 (1988); and Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law at §§ 9.124–9.
"When the language of the judgment incorporating the marital settlement agreement is clear, explicit, and unequivocal, and there is no ambiguity, the court will enforce the express language." Id. (citing CAL. CIV. CODE § 1638, which provides: "The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity."); Lucas v. Elliott, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992); In re Marriage of Zlatnik, 243 Cal. Rptr. 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988); Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law § 9.123, pp. 9-30 to 9-32 (The Rutter Group 1997)). "Extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions is inadmissible to vary, alter, or add to the terms of an unambiguous agreement."
Interpretation of the MTA is a question of law, which we review de novo if there is no extrinsic evidence or if any extrinsic evidence is not conflicting. (Lucas v. Elliott (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892. Again, husband did not designate a reporter's transcript and we cannot determine if any extrinsic evidence was admitted.
(Ibid.) When the determination is not dependent on extrinsic evidence, we review de novo the trial court's interpretation of the contract. (Lucas v. Elliot (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892.) In the family court, Dennis offered his own declaration that spousal support was intended to end on November 9, 2007.
Absent conflicting extrinsic evidence, we review de novo any questions of interpretation of the parties' marital settlement agreement. (See Lucas v. Elliot (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 888, 892 ["as no extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the parties' property settlement agreement was admitted, we are not bound by the trial court's construction of the agreement," fn. omitted].) 2. Alan's Pension Income Must Be Considered in Determining His Ability To Pay Spousal Support