## Facts

- Marlon Brando, Jr. and Movita Brando executed a written property and support agreement during annulment proceedings in July 1968.
- The agreement required Marlon to pay $600 per month for child support and $1,400 per month to Movita; only the $1,400 payments were disputed.
- The agreement provided that the $1,400 payments would continue for 156 months or until Movita “remarries or dies,” and defined “remarriage” to include Movita “appearing to maintain a marital relationship with any person,” as well as any ceremonial marriage even if later invalidated.
- In August 1969, O’Connor Bros. Abalone Co. obtained a judgment against Movita exceeding $55,000, most of which remained unpaid.
- In April 1971, O’Connor sought to levy on amounts allegedly owed by Marlon to Movita under the support agreement.
- Marlon asserted no money was due because he had stopped paying in April 1971, contending Movita’s conduct triggered the agreement’s expanded definition of “remarriage.”

## Issues

1. Whether Movita’s conduct constituted “remarriage” under the agreement’s definition (including “appearing to maintain a marital relationship”), terminating Marlon’s $1,400 monthly obligation.
2. Whether the trial court properly entered judgment in a bench trial under California Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 after weighing Marlon’s evidence.
3. If the obligation had not terminated, whether O’Connor, as Movita’s judgment creditor, could reach the continuing payments.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for O’Connor and Movita.
- The court held the trial court properly granted judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 after weighing Marlon’s evidence and finding it insufficient to prove termination.
- The court held Marlon’s obligation to pay Movita $1,400 per month had not terminated under the agreement’s “remarriage” clause.
- Because the obligation continued, O’Connor could proceed against those payments to satisfy its judgment against Movita.

## Legal Principles

- Parties may contractually define “remarriage” in a support agreement to include conduct short of legal marriage, but the party asserting termination bears the burden to prove the condition occurred.
- A clause requiring “appearing to maintain a marital relationship” demands an objective showing of conduct reasonably indicating a marriage-like relationship, not merely social association.
- In a nonjury trial, Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 authorizes the trial judge to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and enter judgment after the party with the burden has presented its case; the court need not view evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party.
- If a support recipient retains an enforceable right to receive payments under an agreement, a judgment creditor may reach that right to satisfy an unsatisfied judgment (subject to any applicable exemptions not addressed in the decision).

## Conclusion

The court upheld a bench-trial judgment entered under § 631.8, concluding Marlon failed to prove Movita’s conduct met the agreement’s expanded “remarriage” standard, so the $1,400 monthly support obligation continued and was reachable by Movita’s judgment creditor.


O’Connor Bros. Abalone Co. v. Brando, 114 Cal. Rptr. 773 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)