In Re the Marriage of Maricle

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 451·220 Cal. App. 3d 55·269 Cal. Rptr. 204
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 9, 1990B036794California781 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Parties represented by counsel in a marital dissolution action entered into an oral agreement to divide certain community property. The parties did not inform their attorneys. Here we hold that the trial court should not enforce such an agreement merely because it was made. We reverse.

Facts

The parties were married in June of 1963. Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in November of 1983, and the court acquired jurisdiction over wife on January 9, 1984. The action was tried in February of 1988.

Both parties worked for the federal government, and each had a civil service pension plan. At the time of trial, husband had over 30 years and wife had over 28 years of continuous federal civil service employment. Husband’s salary at the time of trial was $50,150, and wife’s salary was $32,600.

Early in 1984, while the action was pending and while both parties were represented by attorneys, husband and wife entered into an oral agreement. They decided to divide a portion of their community assets and obligations, but they did not tell their attorneys. They agreed that the family residence would be sold and wife would receive all of the proceeds. With the proceeds…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.