Rolleri v. Rolleri

164 P.2d 817, 164 P. 817, 33 Cal. App. 233, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 134
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 15, 1917
DocketCiv. No. 2065.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 P.2d 817 (Rolleri v. Rolleri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rolleri v. Rolleri, 164 P.2d 817, 164 P. 817, 33 Cal. App. 233, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 134 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

THE COURT.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for a divorce. Pending suit the parties came together and entered into an arrangement with reference to their property rights. The property, whatever there was, was the separate property of the husband. They entered into an agreement by which the wife—the defendant—was to take the custody of the minor child (whose interests are now sought to be advanced) and was to support him, and was to receive in consideration thereof, and in full of all her claims to the property of the plaintiff, the sum of two thousand dollars. The plaintiff recovered a judgment against his wife for divorce, and the court embodied in that judgment an order in accordance with the aforesaid agreement of the parties. Later on the defendant in the case moved the court for an allowance for the sup *234 port of the child. Upon the hearing of that motion it appeared that she still had on hand something between one thousand five hundred and two thousand dollars of the sum of money which she had received in accordance with the agreement with her husband, and that that money was in a form to be available for the support of the child—whose support she had undertaken at the time she received it. It appeared on the other hand that the plaintiff on his part had fully performed all the conditions of that agreement. The court denied the motion, and the only question before us is as to whether it was an abuse of discretion for the court so to do. We are satisfied from the record that there was no such abuse of discretion. The orders appealed from are therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Puckett v. Puckett
136 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 P.2d 817, 164 P. 817, 33 Cal. App. 233, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rolleri-v-rolleri-calctapp-1917.