Case Title: MARRIAGE OF BOLSTAD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 8 2 - 4 9 2 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA 1 9 8 3 I N RE THE, M A R R I A G E O F P H I L L I P L Y L E B O L S T A D , D e f e n d a n t a n d ~ e s p o n d e n t , and BRENDA S U E B O L S T A D , P e t i t i o n e r a n d A p p e l l a n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f Y e l l o w s t o n e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t : T o w e , B a l l , E n r i g h t & M a c k e y , B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : A l a n J . L e r n e r , B i g F o r k , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d o n b r i e f s : J a n u a r y 2 7 , 1 9 8 3 D e c i d e d : March 1 0 , 1983 - - U - -- .- C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . A p p e l l a n t ( w i f e ) p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n Yellowstone County, s e e k i n g to e n f o r c e t h e terms of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement s h e executed w i t h r e s p o n d e n t (husband ) on O c t o b e r 1 0 , 1979. Husband c o u n t e r - p e t i t i o n e d r e q u e s t i n g h i s payment of maintenance p u r s u a n t to t h e agreement, be t e r m i n a t e d . On September 1 5 , 1982, t h e District C o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r modifying t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement by e l i m i n a t i n g husband I s maintenance o b l i g a t i o n a s of O c t o b e r 1, 1982. Wife a p p e a l s . The p a r t i e s married December 21, 1968. On O c t o b e r 1 0 , 1979, t h e y f i l e d a j o i n t p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e . With t h e i r p e t i t i o n t h e y f i l e d a s e p a r a t i o n and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e agreement o b l i g a t e s husband t o pay to w i f e $375 as maintenance u n t i l she d i e s o r is r e m a r r i e d . Paragraph f o u r t e e n of t h e agreement states : " I n s o f a r a s is l e g a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e , t h i s agreement may n o t be modified by any Court." On O c t o b e r 12, 1979, t h e District Court e n t e r e d its d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . The District Court found t h e s e p a r a t i o n and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement I' is n o t unconscionable . " On J u n e 1 5 , 1982, w i f e p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court to o r d e r husband to a p p e a r and show cause why he had n o t complied w i t h c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. On J u l y 7 , 1982, husband c r o s s - p e t i t i o n e d f o r an o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay w i f e $375 p e r month as maintenance. On September 1 5 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court modified t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n by e l i m i n a t i n g husband I s maintenance o b l i g a t i o n s . Wife a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n modifying husband I s maintenance o b l i g a t i o n when t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement c o n t a i n e d a n o n m o d i f i a b i l i t y c l a u s e ; 2 . Whether t h e District Court p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d each p a r t y pay t h e i r own r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . Husband c o n t e n d s w i f e d i d not p r o p e r l y raise t h e f i r s t i s s u e a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Husband claims i f wife was going to r e l y upon t h e n o n m o d i f i a b i l i t y c l a u s e she should have f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s husband I s p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n or informed t h e District Court of h e r t h e o r y a t t h e h e a r i n g . The r e l e v a n t por- t i o n of t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e August 30 h e a r i n g r e v e a l s an ef f o r t by w i f e ' s c o u n s e l t o raise t h e i s s u e : "Q. And you e n t e r e d i n t o t h e p r o p e r t y settle- ment agreement i n 1979 f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y , i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. T h a t ' s correct. "Q. And you r e a d t h a t agreement b e f o r e you s i g n e d i t ? A. Of c o u r s e . "Q. And you noted and came to an agreement -- "MR. LERNER: O b j e c t i o n , Your Honor. W e are g e t t i n g a l i t t l e f a r af i e l d h e r e . "THE COURT: What is your o b j e c t i o n ? "MR. LERNER: B a s i c a l l y i r r e l e v a n t and a l l p r e c e d i n g to t h e i r r e l e v a n c y i t s e l f . "THE COURT: S u s t a i n e d . "MR. LERNER: Thank you. "Q. (By M r . Todd) You signed an agreement. You f u l l y understood it, c o r r e c t ? "MR. LERNER: Same o b j e c t i o n , Your Honor. "THE COURT: S u s t a i n e d . " The n o n m o d i f i a b i l i t y c l a u s e w a s also r a i s e d v i a h u s b a n d ' s r e s p o n s e t o w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n , and t h e i s s u e was r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s : " 4 . Although p a r a g r a p h 1 4 o f t h e S e p a r a t i o n - - - - - - - . - - - - -- - - - and P r o p e r t y Agreement states no m o d i f i c a t i o n -- - - - - -- - -- --T- - - - can be made i f l e g a l l y p e r m l s s l b l e , t h e r e h a s - - - -- - - - - been a chanae of c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n PHILLIP BOLSTAD'S e a r n i n g s which r e q u i r e s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f s p o u s a l maintenance and s u p p o r t and is such a s contemplated by Montana l a w and t h e Agreement a t t h e t i m e . " (Emphasis added. ) W e f i n d t h e i s s u e h a s been s u f f i c i e n t l y r a i s e d f o r o u r con- s i d e r a t i o n . Under t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t , p a r t ies e n t e r i n g i n t o a w r i t t e n s e p a r a t i o n agreement upon t h e i r separa- t i o n or t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e , may p r e c l u d e modifica- t i o n of t h e terms of t h e i r agreement a t a later d a t e . S e c t i o n 40-4-201(6) , MCA, states: "Except f o r terms concerning t h e sup- p o r t , c u s t o d y , or v i s i t a t i o n of c h i l d r e n , t h e d e c r e e may e x p r e s s l y p r e c l u d e or l i m i t m o d i f i c a t i o n of terms set f o r t h i n t h e d e c r e e i f t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement so p r o v i d e s . " I n t h e r e c e n t case of Rowen v. Rowen ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - . . - - . . Mont. I 649 P.2d 1259, 1262, 39 St.Rep. 1423, t h i s Court implied a District Court does n o t have power to modify maintenance terms where t h e p a r t i e s e x p r e s s l y precluded m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n agreement: "The s e p a r a t i o n agreement d o e s n o t e x p r e s s l y p r e c l u d e o r l i m i t m o d i f i c a t i o n of its maintenance terms. The District Court t h e r e f o r e h a s power t o modify such p r o v i s i o n s by modifying t h e d e c r e e . " T h i s p o s i t i o n is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Colorado case of I n R e Marriage of Thompson (1982 ) , - - Colo . - , 640 P.2d 279. I n Thompson t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a s e p a r a t i o n agreement which - o b l i g a t e d t h e husband t o pay maintenance of $650 p e r month u n t i l t h e f a m i l y home w a s s o l d o r u n t i l A p r i l 1985, when maintenance would be reduced t o $400 p e r month. The agreement also s t a t e d : "No m o d i f i c a t i o n of any of t h e terms of t h i s agreement s h a l l be v a l i d u n l e s s i n w r i t i n g and executed w i t h t h e same f o r m a l i t y as t h i s agreement .I' When t h e D i s t r i c t Court reduced maintenance to $325 p e r month a t a h e a r i n g i n 1981, t h e Colorado Supreme Court r e v e r s e d h o l d i n g it was error f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court to reduce maintenance when t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement e x p r e s s l y p r e c l u d e s m o d i f i c a t i o n . The Colorado Supreme Court r e l i e d on sect i o n 14-10-112(b), C.R.S. 1973, which is i d e n t i c a l to o u r s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 40-4-201(6), MCA. Husband a s k s t h i s Court to uphold t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . H e relies upon d e c i s i o n s from v a r i o u s j u r i s d i c - t i o n s . Husband claims t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s have sometimes upheld m o d i f i c a t i o n depending upon where t h e nonmodif i a b i l i t y c l a u s e rests i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t , o r depending upon whether t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n is a t t a c k e d as from a c o n t r a c t u a l o r j u r i s - d i c t i o n a l s t a n d p o i n t . W e do n o t f i n d t h e h o l d i n g s of t h e s e cases t o have t h e f a r - r e a c h i n g meaning propounded by husband. W e do f i n d t h e overwhelming a u t h o r i t y is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Thompson r u l e t h a t where a s e p a r a t i o n agreement e x p r e s s l y p r e c l u d e s modi- f i c a t i o n o r l i m i t a t i o n of maintenance, a District Court is b a r r e d from l a t e r modifying t h e terms of t h e agreement. Both p a r t i e s have asked f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l . Paragraph t h i r t e e n of t h e s e p a r a t i o n and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement states: "Should any f u t u r e a c t i o n be commenced t o e n f o r c e , modify or i n t e r p r e t any p r o v i s i o n of t h i s agreement, t h e C o u r t s h a l l award r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y s f e e s f o r t h e s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y as a c o s t of s u i t ." Here, wife is t h e s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y and a c c o r d i n g t o t h e agreement, s h e must be awarded r e a s o n a b l e attor- ney f e e s . Reversed and remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r pro- c e e d i n g s i n accordance w i t h t h i s Opinion i n c l u d i n g t h e f i x i n g of a t t o r n e y f e e s both i n t h e District C o u r t and on a p p e a l . ~ C 3 a L , & ~ 1 W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e