Appellant wife sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, which found that the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation did not apply to the contract appellant had with respondent husband for payment of a property settlement in lieu of alimony. The trial court also refused appellant’s requested relief as to payments due at the time of trial.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. can explain more about Doctors Note for Work Law
Appellant wife agreed to a property settlement from respondent husband, paid in installments, in lieu of alimony. Respondent refused to pay the installments and appellant sought the total sum due on the property settlement because of respondent’s anticipatory repudiation of the entire agreement. The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that there could be no anticipatory breach of unilateral contract. The court held that the trial court’s ruling that the doctrine of anticipatory breach did not apply to a contract which had become unilateral because of the opposite party’s full performance, finds uncontradicted support in California law. The court held that the main objective of the contract was not frustrated by the repudiation; the payment of the amount due upon the fixed dates fulfilled its underlying purpose. The payments were separable and divisible. The default in one, even though concomitant with a renunciation of the whole contract, did not preclude performance of the remainder. The court held that the series of acts were not so connected that the omission of one affected the totality; the purpose of the covenant might be achieved even though a single payment might fail.
The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that respondent spouse’s refusal to pay the property settlement agreed upon in lieu of alimony to appellant wife was an anticipatory repudiation because there could be no anticipatory breach of unilateral contract. The court reversed the part of the trial court’s finding that appellant was not entitled to a judgment for the payments due and owing from respondent at the time of trial.
*
Be the first to comment.