Lucas v. Elliott

12 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Iberti

    55 Cal.App.4th 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 114 times
    Refusing to add qualifying language to the agreement where it would substantially alter the agreement

    " (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.

  2. In re Marriage of Smith

    148 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 52 times
    In Smith, the court reviewed a postjudgment order dividing a military spouse's retirement benefits, which required him to pay his former spouse a percentage of the VA disability benefits he would receive.

    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

  3. M.G. v. O.G.

    B254358 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2016)   1 Legal Analyses

    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."

  4. In re Marriage of Rosenfeld

    225 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 26 times
    In Rosenfeld, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th 478, 487-488, the appellate court exhaustively analyzed different principles on the enforcement of MSA support provisions regarding minor or adult children.

    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.”

  5. Tintocalis v. Tintocalis

    20 Cal.App.4th 1590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 14 times
    In Tintocalis, a husband who had violated court orders by failing to pay the premium on an existing policy of insurance on his life was ordered to pay monthly spousal support and to secure a life insurance policy of specified amount with the wife as beneficiary.

    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.

  6. Diener v. McBeth (In re Diener)

    483 B.R. 196 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times

    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.

  7. Diener v. McBeth (In re Diener)

    BAP No. CC-12-1093-KiNoPa (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2012)

    "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."

  8. Montazer v. Montazer (In re Marriage of Montazer)

    No. G054063 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2017)

    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.

  9. Needleman v. Needleman

    B220967 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    (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.

  10. Oliney v. Oliney

    B227271 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)

    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