## Facts

- Guy D. Hufford (husband) and Dorothy Morse Hufford (wife) dissolved their marriage.
- The parties filed a written stipulation addressing spousal support and other matters.
- The stipulation provided husband would pay $1,200 per month for two years after entry of the interlocutory judgment, then $600 per month until wife remarried or died.
- The stipulation included a clause stating the agreement was “entire” and could not be altered or modified except by a writing executed by both parties.
- The stipulation also stated the court would retain jurisdiction after final judgment to determine issues raised by the agreement unless specifically excluded.
- The superior court entered an interlocutory decree ordering support and other relief in substantially similar terms to the stipulation’s support provision, but the decree did not refer to the stipulation and did not include the retention-of-jurisdiction or integration/nonmodification clauses.
- Years later, husband sought to modify (reduce) spousal support based on asserted changed circumstances, including decreased income, increased obligations from a new family, and wife’s reduced need.
- The trial court denied modification, reasoning the stipulation’s integration/nonmodification clause made support nonmodifiable absent a written agreement by both parties.

## Issues

1. Whether a general integration/nonmodification clause stating the parties may not modify their agreement except by a signed writing bars judicial modification of spousal support under former Civil Code § 4811(b).
2. Whether the trial court may treat spousal support as nonmodifiable when the purported nonmodification language was not incorporated into, or referenced by, the interlocutory decree.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the requested modification.
- The court held the stipulation’s general integration/nonmodification clause did not satisfy former Civil Code § 4811(b)’s requirement of a specific term making support nonmodifiable.
- The court concluded the trial court retained authority to consider modification and erred by refusing to reach the merits.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the modification request.

## Legal Principles

- Under former Civil Code § 4811(b), spousal support remains judicially modifiable unless the parties’ agreement or the order specifically provides that support is nonmodifiable.
- A boilerplate clause stating the agreement is “entire” and may be modified only by a signed writing is directed to private contractual changes and, without specific language, does not waive the court’s statutory power to modify support.
- To preclude judicial modification of support, language must clearly address spousal support and expressly limit or eliminate the court’s jurisdiction to modify it.
- When a judgment sets support and does not incorporate or reference an alleged nonmodification term, the support obligation is governed by the judgment and statutory modification rules.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that general contract integration language did not make spousal support nonmodifiable and did not deprive the court of statutory power to modify support; the trial court was required to consider the husband’s modification request on its merits.


In re Marriage of Hufford, 152 Cal. App. 3d 825 (Ct. App. 1984)