Title: Washburn v. Washburn

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

204 Kan. 160 (1969)
460 P.2d 503
MARGARET A. WASHBURN, Appellee and Cross-Appellant
v.
HOWARD WASHBURN, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
No. 45,445

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 8, 1969.
Robert L. Boyce, Jr., of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant and cross-appellee.
John H. Fields, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee and cross-appellant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This appeal stems from a controversy over the meaning of the language used in a settlement agreement in anticipation of a divorce.
We are interested in but two paragraphs of the agreement as follows:
A divorce was granted to Margaret A. Washburn on her petition as of June 23, 1964. Although the settlement agreement was not incorporated in the judgment as such the same language was used.
The plaintiff remarried June 24, 1967. On February 28, 1968, plaintiff filed a motion in the district court for an order determining the exact amount of delinquent alimony and support presently due. On this motion the trial court found:
The trial court found that there was as of the 8th day of March, 1968, the sum of $8,014.00 due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and that of this sum $750.00 was past-due child support and $7,264.00 was the balance of the delinquent and past-due alimony as of the date of the remarriage of the plaintiff on June 24, 1967.
The defendant has appealed. He makes but one contention here which reads:
The plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal but concedes that if the judgment is sustained the cross-appeal becomes immaterial. It will not receive further attention.
We find no merit in the defendant's, appellant's, contention. In the construction of a settlement agreement, the primary rule of construction is that, if possible, the court must ascertain and give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as of the time the contract was made. (In re Estate of Hill, 162 Kan. 385, 176 P.2d 515.) It was said in United States v. Reis, 214 F.2d 327, 329:
The appellant in oral argument admitted that at the time the agreement was entered into neither party anticipated or had in mind a default in the payments as agreed. Therefore, they must have intended the phrase "any balance due" to mean future payments, not payments which were past due and in default at the time of remarriage.
A careful examination of the record discloses nothing that would cause this court to disagree with the findings and conclusions of the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.