See

See v. Superior Court

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 634·1961 Cal. LEXIS 211·55 Cal. 2d 279·359 P.2d 32
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 1961L. A. No. 26110California884 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Traynor, J.

— Doris S. See and Charles See were married in 1942 and divorced in 1960. On March 14, 1959, they executed an integrated property settlement agreement dividing their property and providing for child support and monthly payments in lieu of alimony. The agreement was incorporated in the interlocutory decree. The final decree was entered on April 27, 1960. On June 27, 1960, Doris filed an amended complaint in an independent suit in equity to vacate the parts of the decree incorporating the agreement. She also sought temporary alimony, child support, and suit money. *280 The trial court denied the temporary relief on the ground that it had no power to make the orders requested. Doris seeks a writ of mandate to the trial court to hear her motions for temporary alimony, child support, and suit money.

Charles invokes the rule that temporary alimony cannot be granted unless there is evidence of an existing marriage (Reeves v. Reeves, 34 Cal.2d 355, 361 [ 209 P.2d 937 ]; Colbert v. Colbert, 28 Cal.2d 276, 279 [ 169 P.2d 633 ]) and the rule that alimony cannot be granted after a marriage has been dissolved in this state by a court that had jurisdiction over both spouses. (Long v. Long, 17…

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.