## Facts

- Former spouses litigated a divorce in which the court found community debts totaling $4,829 existing at the time the action was filed.
- The divorce decree ordered the former husband to pay those community debts up to $4,829 and to hold the former wife harmless from payment and related defense expenses.
- A prior appeal affirmed the decree’s community-debt provision, rejecting arguments that lack of an itemized list required reversal as between the spouses.
- After the decree, the former wife sought enforcement, asserting the former husband had not complied with the debt-payment and indemnity obligations.
- The trial court issued post-decree orders directing the former husband to pay specified community creditors and awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife’s counsel.
- The former husband appealed the orders compelling payment of specified debts and awarding attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the post-decree order requiring payment of specified community debts was an impermissible modification of the property provisions of the divorce decree or a permissible enforcement order.
2. Whether the trial court had authority to award attorney’s fees to the former wife in connection with enforcing the decree and on appeal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the order requiring the former husband to pay specified community debts as an enforcement of the decree’s existing obligation to pay up to $4,829 and to hold the former wife harmless.
- The court rejected the contention that identifying particular debts and creditors expanded the husband’s liability beyond the decree.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award as within the court’s authority in post-judgment enforcement proceedings and related appellate work.
- The appealed orders were affirmed with minor modification.

## Legal Principles

- A divorce decree that allocates responsibility for community debts between spouses may be enforced by later orders that implement the decree by specifying debts and directing payment within the decree’s fixed limit.
- An enforcement order that makes a prior adjudicated obligation concrete is distinct from a substantive modification of a final property division.
- A “hold harmless” provision permits enforcement measures aimed at preventing the non-paying spouse from bearing the debts or incurring defense costs, even though creditors are not bound by the spouses’ allocation.
- Courts may award attorney’s fees in post-judgment proceedings to enforce divorce decrees and may allow fees related to appellate proceedings when necessary to protect rights established by the decree.

## Conclusion

The court held that post-decree orders compelling the former husband to pay identified community debts and awarding attorney’s fees properly enforced the divorce decree’s community-debt and hold-harmless provisions and did not amount to an improper modification of the property adjudication.


Wilson v. Wilson, 33 Cal. 2d 107 (Cal. 1948)