Title: Connolly v. Connolly

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

270 N.W.2d 44 (1978) Thelma E. CONNOLLY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William T. CONNOLLY, Defendant and Respondent. No. 12137. Supreme Court of South Dakota. September 21, 1978. Rehearing Denied October 13, 1978. *45 Thomas W. Parliman of Parliman & Parliman, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant. Everett A. Bogue of Bogue, Weeks & Rusch, Vermillion, for defendant and respondent. WOLLMAN, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from that portion of a judgment and decree in this divorce action that upheld as valid and enforceable an antenuptial agreement concerning appellant's right to alimony. We reverse and remand. Appellant and respondent were married on February 15, 1969. Appellant was then 64, and respondent was 81. Both parties had been married before. Some five days prior to the marriage, the parties signed an agreement in the office of respondent's attorney that provided in part: On March 31, 1970, the parties by written agreement modified the antenuptial agreement by striking a portion that is not material to the issue presented by this appeal. This subsequent agreement also recited that the parties were confirming and ratifying the remainder of the original agreement. The marriage did not prove to be a happy one, and in August of 1975, appellant commenced divorce proceedings. She included in her prayer for relief a claim for alimony. The trial court held that those portions of the antenuptial agreement set forth above were valid and enforceable. The judgment and decree of divorce accordingly provided that appellant should receive $149.96 per month (the amount appellant would have received from her pension from her former employer had she not remarried) during her remaining eight year life expectancy, or until her remarriage or death. *46 Appellant contends that the provisions in the antenuptial agreement that purport to restrict her right to receive alimony in the event of a divorce are void and unenforceable because they are contrary to the public policy of this state. At one time, it was the rule that any attempt by the parties to a marriage to diminish or waive by way of an antenuptial agreement a husband's duty to support his wife by way of alimony was unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. See In re Marriage of Higgason, 10 Cal. 3d 476, 110 Cal. Rptr. 897, 516 P.2d 289, and cases cited therein. A concise statement of the bases for the rule is found in In re Marriage of Gudenkauf, Iowa, 204 N.W.2d 586, 587: Some of the more recent decisions, however, seem to have receded from this flat prohibition against enforcing agreements of this nature in favor of a more flexible ad hoc approach that determines the validity of such an agreement on the basis of the facts of each case. See, e. g., In re Marriage of Dawley, 17 Cal. 3d 342, 131 Cal. Rptr. 3, 551 P.2d 323 (overruling in part In re Marriage of Higgason, supra); Unander v. Unander, 265 Or. 102, 506 P.2d 719 (in effect overruling Reiling v. Reiling, 256 Or. 448, 474 P.2d 327, cited in the Gudenkauf case, supra); Posner v. Posner, Fla., 233 So. 2d 381; Volid v. Volid, 6 Ill.App.3d 386, 286 N.E.2d 42. Whatever the trend of judicial decisions in other jurisdictions may be with respect to the continuing validity of the rule that antenuptial agreements of this nature are void as against public policy, we conclude that the provisions in question here are contrary to the public policy expressed in our statutes. It is the obligation of the husband to support his wife. SDCL 25-7-1. SDCL 25-2-13 provides: SDCL 25-4-41 provides: Respondent cites our recent decision in Schutterle v. Schutterle, S.D., 260 N.W.2d 341, in which we upheld the validity of an antenuptial agreement that concerned the separately owned property of the parties, and SDCL 25-2-10, which provides that parties to a marriage may enter into transactions with each other respecting property. We do not consider the Schutterle case nor the cited statute as authority for the proposition that parties to a marriage may validly contract with respect to the matter of the payment of alimony in the event of a *47 divorce. Nor do we believe that this court's decision in Evens v. Evens, 55 S.D. 482, 226 N.W. 725, supports the argument that antenuptial agreements limiting alimony are valid in this state. The Evens case concerned an agreement for support entered into during the pendency of an action for divorce. Moreover, the terms of the agreement were incorporated in the judgment of divorce. Thus, the agreement was one that was specifically provided for by the terms of what is now SDCL 25-2-13. More to the point is Shoop v. Shoop, 58 S.D. 593, 237 N.W. 904, which concerned a settlement agreement entered into during the pendency of divorce proceedings and which provided for the payment of $25 per month in the form of alimony. The agreement was later confirmed and approved by the trial court in its decree of divorce. On appeal from a subsequent order that modified the decree by striking the provision for the payment of alimony, this court was faced with the question whether, under what is now SDCL 25-4-41, the trial court had the power to modify a judgment providing for support that was based upon the contract of the parties. In answering this question in the affirmative, this court stated: See also Simmons v. Simmons, 67 S.D. 145, 290 N.W. 319. We conclude that when read together SDCL 25-7-1, 25-2-13, and 25-4-41 contemplate that a husband's duty of support may be the subject of a valid agreement entered into between the parties to a marriage subsequent to the marriage and in contemplation of separation or divorce, but that in the event of a divorce the trial court has the ultimate authority to approve or reject the agreement and, if it approves the agreement, to later modify the provisions for support. The tenor of our statutes and decisions is that the post-divorce obligation of a husband to support his ex-wife is affected with such a public interest that the parties in a divorce action may not conclusively agree upon the terms of future support payments. The same principle should be applied even more strictly in an antenuptial setting where, as pointed out in the Gudenkauf case, supra, conditions which affect a spouse's entitlement to alimony cannot accurately be foreseen. Accordingly, we conclude that to insure that the public's interest in the enforcement of a husband's duty to support his wife is not thwarted by antenuptial agreements that may bear no reasonable relationship to the subsequent situation of the parties, we must hold that such agreements are void and unenforceable. Such a holding, we believe, is more consistent with the public policy expressed in our statutes than would be a holding similar to those in Posner v. Posner, Unander v. Unander, and Volid v. Volid, supra. Accordingly, *48 we hold that the provisions in the antenuptial agreement in question which purport to limit respondent's obligation to support appellant may not be enforced. That portion of the judgment appealed from is reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views set forth herein.[*] All the Justices concur. [*] We have considered respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal for appellant's failure to comply with our statutory appellate procedure and have concluded that the motion should be denied.