California Supreme Court
Zola v. Hill, Appellant, v. Jack C. Hill, Respondent
October 15, 194323 Cal. 2d 82
Summary
The court held that a property-settlement agreement between spouses who had already separated was enforceable even though it was made in contemplation of divorce and conditioned on obtaining a divorce. Because the parties had no intention of resuming marital relations, the wife had grounds for divorce, and there was no collusion or agreement to facilitate fraud on the court, enforcement did not violate public policy. The judgment for the husband was reversed and the cause remanded for entry of judgment enforcing the agreement.
Holding
- Enforceability of a divorce-conditioned property-settlement agreement. A property-settlement agreement made after separation, without fraud, collusion, or imposition on the court, is valid and enforceable even if it is made in contemplation of divorce and becomes effective only when one spouse obtains a divorce.
Docket L. A. 18144
Cited authorities
- 21 Va. L. Rev. 446
- 7 Minn. L. Rev. 592
- 7 Minn. L. Rev. 592
Cited by
- James Parks Bradley, Petitioner v. the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; Frances…
- James Parks Bradley, Petitioner v. the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; Frances…
- Plant v. Plant
- David Capps, Sr. v. Patricia Diane Seawell Capps
- Felix J. Weil, Respondent v. Helen K. Weil, Appellant
- L. Angell, Appellant v. Charles Angell, Respondent
- Thelma M. Marsiglia, Appellant v. Sam Marsiglia, Respondent
- Arline C. Barham, Respondent v. Frank F. Barham, Appellant