Title: Rice v. Rice

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

219 Kan. 569 (1976)
549 P.2d 555
E. RICE, Appellant,
v.
E. RICE (now E. Simpson), Appellee.
No. 47,859

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 8, 1976.
Harold Youngentob, of Goodell, Casey, Briman & Cogswell, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Thomas E. Wright, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for the appellant.
R. Kent Sullivan, of Payne & Jones, Chartered, of Olathe, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MILLER, J.:
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court denying plaintiff's motion to terminate alimony payments. This divorce proceeding was before this court in 1974, when plaintiff appealed from an order of the trial court denying his motion to terminate certain child support. Rice v. Rice, 213 Kan. 800, 518 P.2d 477. The sole question presented here is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the decree of divorce embodied a separation agreement between the parties which fixed the amount of alimony.
E. Rice, also known as Ernest J. Rice, filed a petition for divorce in the district court of Wabaunsee County on October 7, 1970. Defendant, Ellen L. Rice, entered her voluntary appearance. The trial court declared an emergency and advanced the case for hearing on November 25, 1970. Plaintiff appeared in person and by counsel. At the time the matter was heard a lengthy decree of divorce, containing provisions for custody, support, education, medical expenses and insurance for the children; dividing the property of the parties; providing for alimony payable in various monthly installments, such payments to cease "upon defendant's death or remarriage, or upon plaintiff's death"; providing for the taking of credit for the children as dependents for income tax purposes; and providing for the payment of accrued income taxes, was submitted to the court. This order had been prepared in advance. *570 It was finalized at a meeting of plaintiff, his attorney, and defendant's attorney on the morning of the hearing, and was approved by counsel for both parties. Upon trial it was approved and adopted by the court.
The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law upon the hearing of the plaintiff's earlier motion to terminate child support. Those findings included the following statements which are pertinent here:
Upon the hearing of the motion which is the subject of this appeal, the trial court again made findings of fact and conclusions of law. These, in pertinent part, read as follows:
Our statute, K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 60-1610 (d) provides as follows:
At the time of the hearing of plaintiff's motion, the defendant had not remarried and she did not consent to any modification. (Defendant's counsel advised us on oral argument that defendant has *573 remarried during the pendency of this appeal, hence the change in the caption above.) If an agreement concerning alimony is present, the statute bars modification by the courts absent any provision for modification in the agreement, and absent the consent of both parties. Drummond v. Drummond, 209 Kan. 86, 495 P.2d 994; Dodd v. Dodd, 210 Kan. 50, 499 P.2d 518; In re Estate of Sweeney, 210 Kan. 216, 500 P.2d 56; Cheek v. Kelley, 212 Kan. 820, 512 P.2d 355; and Curtis v. Curtis, 218 Kan. 130, 542 P.2d 330.
In Curtis, we said:
Appellant cites Platt v. Davies, Admr., 82 Ohio App. 182, 77 N.E.2d 486 and Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 84 N.W.2d 367, to support his position. Neither Ohio nor Minnesota have statutes analogous to K.S.A. 60-1610 (d). The cases are further distinguishable on the facts. The parties in Platt never entered into an agreement; and the husband in Hellman was seeking a modification of the decree, contending that the decree did not reflect the true agreement of the parties. Neither case is helpful.
Was there an agreement between these parties? The trial court so found and its finding appears to have substantial support in the record. The decree, aptly described by the trial court as "skillfully, artfully, and carefully drawn", was prepared in advance, approved by counsel, and submitted to the court for approval at the conclusion of what is described as brief testimony by the plaintiff. A letter between counsel, dated November 30, 1970, indicates that while there was no formal property settlement agreement, an agreement had been reached. The case was not contested and the decree, containing specific provisions for alimony, drawn and approved in advance, was submitted upon trial. The trial court found the agreement to be fair and approved it by entering the proposed decree. In Rice v. Rice, supra, we held that the decree, insofar as it provided for child support, was based upon an oral agreement of the parties. We reach the same conclusion with respect to the provisions for alimony. The fact that the agreement was oral is of no moment. The statute does not require that the agreement be in writing; further, the terms of the agreement *574 were fully set forth in the journal entry which was submitted to and approved by the trial court. We find no error.
The judgment is affirmed.
PRAGER, J., not participating.