Title: Bosch v. Bosch

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

197 N.W.2d 673 (1972) Edward J. BOSCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Adele C. BOSCH, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. No. 8816. Supreme Court of North Dakota. May 1, 1972. E. J. Bosch, Minot, for plaintiff and appellant. Robert A. Alphson, Grand Forks, for defendant and respondent. ERICKSTAD, Justice. By judgment dated April 1, 1968, the plaintiff Edward J. Bosch was awarded a divorce from the defendant Adele C. Bosch and custody of their minor children. Edward was required to pay to Adele the sum *674 of $9,000 as "a full and complete settlement of all property rights, alimony, support and maintenance". By motion dated August 10, 1971, Adele asked the court to determine the amount of alimony due from Edward to her and grant her a judgment for the amount due. In response thereto, by motion dated August 12, 1971, Edward asked that the court allow a set-off for money paid to the Internal Revenue on a judgment due and owing jointly by Edward and Adele, on which Edward had paid in excess of $10,000 and on which Adele had made no payments. In the event that a set-off was not permitted by the court, Edward asked that the court modify the divorce decree in accordance with Section 14-05-24, N.D.C.C. Following the hearing of these motions on September 21, 1971, the court, by order dated September 30, 1971, denied Edward's motion and found him obligated to pay the sum of $2,948.52 as monthly alimony payments in arrears and interest. Edward appeals from that order, contending that the divorce decree did not provide for alimony and that a set-off must be allowed. He does not contend in our court that the trial court was in error in refusing to modify the original divorce judgment. Conceding that the judgment includes the term "alimony", it is his view that the judgment contains no alimony, that it dealt solely with property, and that accordingly a set-off should have been permitted under Section 28-20-33, N.D.C.C., and Section 9-01-08, N.D.C.C. He relies on Kack v. Kack, 169 N.W.2d 111 (N.D.1969), Nugent v. Nugent, 152 N.W.2d 323 (N.D.1967), Stoutland v. Stoutland, 103 N.W.2d 286 (N.D.1960), Bryant v. Bryant, 102 N.W.2d 800 (N.D.1960), Leifert v. Wolfer, 74 N.D. 746, 24 N.W.2d 690 (1946), Karteus v. Karteus, 67 N.D. 297, 272 N.W. 185 (1937), Sinkler v. Sinkler, 49 N.D. 1144, 194 N.W. 817 (1923), and Glynn v. Glynn, 8 N.D. 233, 77 N.W. 594 (1898). We must consider these cases in the light of the judgment, the pertinent parts of which read: Pertinent also are parts of the stipulation upon which the judgment was based. The most recent decision of our court referred to us as an aid in our determination of the issue in this case and, incidentally, cited by both parties to this action, is that of Kack v. Kack, 169 N.W.2d 111 (N. D.1969). In that decision, this court, without reciting in detail all of the provisions of the divorce judgment or all of the provisions of the property settlement upon which the judgment was based, held that the part of the judgment providing for a payment of $500 monthly to the plaintiff as alimony was subject to modification on proper showing and was enforceable through contempt proceedings. Paragraph VI of the findings of the trial court in Kack, entered on the 16th of February 1960, shows that the plaintiff, in renouncing in the "property settlement agreement" of January 30, 1960, any interest in property not specifically set over to her in the property settlement, disclaimed any right she had in property worth in excess of $200,000 at that time. Paragraph VI reads: In Kack, in exchange for renouncing any claim to property not specifically mentioned *677 in the property settlement, the defendant agreed in the property settlement to give the plaintiff $5,000 to be applied upon the purchase of a home, to assign to the plaintiff a promissory note of $1,800, to arrange for the payment of a $400 bonus due the plaintiff from one of the defendant's companies, to transfer to the plaintiff title and possession of a 1960 four-door Impala Chevrolet automobile, and all of the household goods and furnishings owned by the parties located at a certain residence in Dickinson, to pay the costs of the education of their minor son, to pay the plaintiff $1,000 of a total of $2,000 presently owed the parties by a certain company, and to pay the plaintiff $500 monthly as alimony. In the instant case, under the "stipulation" and the judgment, Mrs. Bosch received what appears to be furniture sufficient to equip an apartment, her personal belongings, and a commitment from Mr. Bosch to pay her alimony of $9,000 in installments. Mr. Bosch received Mrs. Bosch's commitment to execute and deliver to him a quitclaim deed transferring her interest in a residence at one address in Minot, a building known as a duplex at another address in Minot, and a lake lot. In addition to property previously mentioned, Mrs. Bosch was to acquire title to a 1959 Ford automobile then in her possession, and Mr. Bosch was to pay on her behalf to her attorney the sum of $400 as attorney fees. Although the record before us does not disclose the value of the property Mrs. Bosch agreed to quitclaim to her husband, it appears that this was the bulk of their property. Mr. Bosch also assumed the responsibility of caring for all of their children. In this case, as well as in Kack, by the respective judgments and pursuant to the parties' stipulations, the husbands received the bulk of the property and agreed to pay alimony to their former wives. The federal judgment which Mr. Bosch seeks to set off results from income tax liability apparently incurred by the Bosches for income earned in 1961, 1962, and 1963. The tax judgment apparently was not filed until 1970. Neither the stipulation nor the divorce judgment alerts us to the possibility of such a judgment. Neither specifically covers such an eventuality. The divorce decree is dated April 1, 1968, and it is contended that both parties knew of the tax audit prior to that date. We believe that analysis here of the other cases cited by the parties would be of little help to us in determining this case. It is sufficient to note that Kack discloses a trend indicated in Nugent to permit modifications of divorce decrees upon proper showing, notwithstanding that the stipulations and judgments based thereon disposed of the property unequally, provided the party seeking the modification is not in contempt. We believe, therefore, that the trial court was correct in refusing to permit Mr. Bosch to set off payments he had made on their joint obligation, and in refusing at the time to consider modifying the divorce judgment if Mr. Bosch was then in contempt of court for failing to keep the alimony payments current. This is consistent with the view expressed by the writers of American Jurisprudence 2d. See also 100 A.L.R.2d 926, § 2, and Ryan v. Ryan, 271 Ala. 243, 123 So. 2d 102 (1960). The trial court under Section 14-05-24, N.D.C.C., has the authority to modify a divorce decree upon proper showing. Mr. Bosch has stated, among other things, in oral argument that the former Mrs. Bosch is now remarried. That fact and other alleged facts may upon proper showing justify a modification of the original divorce decree as it relates to alimony not yet due and payable. That matter we cannot decide in this appeal. For reasons stated in this opinion, the order of the trial court denying the motion to set off is affirmed. STRUTZ, C. J., and PAULSON, KNUDSON and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.