Gerald and Claire were married.
But Gerald then met Hilda. Gerald and Hilda went off together.
Gerald asked Claire for a
divorce (this was before no-fault divorce was common). Claire said that she would only file for divorce if
Gerald signed separation agreement, and Claire guaranteed the payments.
The separation agreement required Gerald to pay continuing spousal
support payments to Claire, and
stipulated that if Gerald didn't pay, Claire could get the money from
Hilda.
Everybody signed the separation
agreement, and Claire filed for
divorce. It was granted and everybody walked away happy.
Gerald then married Hilda.
A few years later, Hilda
divorced Gerald. Gerald stopped sending his spousal support payments to Claire.
Claire sued Gerald and
obtained a judgment against him, but he didn't have any money, so Claire
couldn't collect.
Claire then sued Hilda as the
guarantor of the separation agreement.
The Trial Court found for
Claire and ordered Hilda to pay about $9k. She appealed.
Hilda argued that the separation
agreement was void because it was
against public policy because it was intended to get Claire to divorce
Gerald.
"Public policy seeks to
foster and protect marriage, to encourage parties to live together, and
to prevent separation.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The California Supreme Court
affirmed.
The California Supreme Court
found that Gerald and Claire's marriage was 'irreparably broken' before
the separation agreement.
Therefore the separation
agreement was not contrary to public
policy because the parties weren't going to stay together anyway.
Basically Claire and
Gerald didn't get a divorce specifically because of Hilda's inducement.
Hypothetically, if Gerald and
Claire had a perfectly happy marriage and Hilda walked in and said,
"I'll give you a million dollars to get a divorce," that would
not be enforceable because it would be a contract discouraging marriage.
But in this case, the marriage was over anyway.
