Title: Callister v. Callister

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

1 Utah 2d 34 (1953) 261 P.2d 944 CALLISTER v. CALLISTER. No. 7967. Supreme Court of Utah. October 16, 1953. James W. Beless, Jr., Gustin, Richards & Mattsson, Salt Lake City, for appellant. Nielson & Conder, Salt Lake City, for respondent. HOYT, District Judge. This appeal involves first the question of power of the court to modify provisions of a divorce decree which required defendant (respondent here) to make monthly payments to plaintiff throughout her life or until her remarriage. In 1945 plaintiff (appellant) commenced suit for divorce and prayed for division of property and for alimony. During the pendency of the proceedings an "Agreement of Property Settlement and Alimony" was entered into and executed by the parties. In addition to provisions for division between the parties of real and personal property of considerable value the agreement contained the following: The plaintiff was granted a divorce, custody of a minor child, and judgment for division of property in accordance with the terms of the agreement mentioned. A copy of the agreement was attached to the court's findings and by reference incorporated as a part of the findings. The decree entered in the case contained the following recitals: In July 1952 the defendant filed a motion to amend the judgment with respect to the monthly payments, and asked the court to reduce the amount from $400 to $200 per month, alleging as grounds therefor that defendant's income had been materially reduced and his health impaired since the rendition of the decree. Plaintiff filed an amended answer denying the defendant's allegations. The original answer is not shown as a part of the record on appeal. Trial of issues was had and the court found that since the rendition of the decree the defendant's income from his practice as a physician and surgeon had decreased from $1,000 per month to $600 per month; that he had remarried and had a wife and child to support; that since 1949 he had suffered from heart trouble which had become progressively worse, making it necessary for him to abstain from activities producing physical or mental strain, thereby reducing his income from his profession; also that plaintiff had income from rentals in excess of $4,500 per year besides some income from investments in stocks. The court concluded that monthly payments required of defendant to plaintiff should be reduced from $400 per month to $250 per month, also that defendant should not be required to pay plaintiff's attorney fees in the proceeding. Judgment was entered accordingly. Defendant appeals and asserts (1) that the judgment requiring monthly payments is not subject to modification; that it was based upon an agreement for property settlement and that the payments required do not fall within the accepted definition of alimony; (2) that the evidence does not support the findings of the court relative to change of circumstances upon which the judgment is based; (3) that voluntary impoverishment is not ground for modification of the decree; (4) that the court erred in not allowing plaintiff her attorney fees. Our statute Sec. 30-3-5, U.C.A. 1953, provides that: This court has interpreted the statute to authorize the courts to increase or decrease alimony payments upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances. Buzzo v. Buzzo, 45 Utah 625, 148 P. 362. It is generally held that under such a statute the court can modify a decree for alimony regardless of whether the decree was based upon an agreement of the parties. See annotations in 58 A.L.R. 639; 109 A.L.R. 1068; 166 A.L.R. 675. This court has held that, by reason of the statute, an agreement or stipulation between parties to a divorce suit as to alimony or payments for support of children is not binding upon the court in entering a divorce decree, but serves only as a recommendation, and if the court adopts the suggestion of the parties it does not thereby lose the right to make such modification or change thereafter as may be requested by either party, based upon change of circumstances warranting such modification. Jones v. Jones, 104 Utah 275, 139 P.2d 222; Barraclough v. Barraclough, 100 Utah 196, 111 P.2d 792. Counsel for plaintiff contends however that in the above cases there was not involved a property settlement agreement such as here and that this case must therefore be distinguished and should be governed by the doctrine announced in Dickey v. Dickey, 154 Md. 675, 141 A. 387, 58 A.L.R. 634, and North v. North, 339 Mo. 1226, 100 S.W.2d 582, 109 A.L.R. 1061. Plaintiff also cites Ettlinger v. Ettlinger, 3 Cal. 2d 172, 44 P.2d 540; Puckett v. Puckett, 21 Cal. 2d 833, 136 P.2d 1; and Rich v. Rich, 44 Cal. App. 2d 526, 112 P.2d 780. Counsel contends that in these cases it is held that where there has been a property settlement agreement, coupled with an agreement for monthly payments, and the court has approved of such agreement and adopted it in the divorce decree, the provision for monthly payments is an inseparable part of the property settlement and therefore may not be subsequently modified except by consent of both parties. It is noted that in Dickey v. Dickey, supra, the Supreme Court of Maryland held that where both the agreement and the decree provided for monthly payments during the life or until the remarriage of the wife, such payments could not be considered to be alimony, and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction either to modify the decree or to enforce the payments of contempt proceedings. This was based upon the view that the court in the divorce action did not have power, in the absence of agreement by the parties, to grant a judgment requiring payment of alimony after the death of the husband, and having granted judgment based upon the contract of the parties, which might require payments after the husband's death, such payments could not be considered alimony. This view is opposed to the majority of appellate decisions as appears from annotations in 18 A.L.R. 1047, 1050, and 101 A.L.R. 324, 326, and is not in harmony with views of this court as announced in Murphy v. Moyle, 17 Utah 113, 53 P. 1010, 1012, 70 Am.St.Rep. 767. The Utah statute at the time of that decision was substantially the same as now. The court said: It is true that in that case the claim made against the deceased husband's estate was for support of a minor child, but the opinion expressed as to the power of the court under the statute to award alimony to continue after the death of the husband appears to be supported by the weight of judicial authority. In North v. North, supra, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that in a divorce proceeding the court had no power to enter judgment calling for payments after the death of the husband, except pursuant to consent or agreement and that where a contract had been entered into for a division of property and for payment of $500 per month until the death or remarriage of the wife, with a note and trust deed given to secure performance, and where the divorce decree approved the contract and incorporated its terms in the judgment, the court had no jurisdiction to subsequently reduce the monthly payments, regardless of the fact that they were referred to in the decree as alimony. It should be noted however that in that case a note and trust deed had been given to secure payment of the installments of so-called alimony and the agreement expressly recited that in consideration of the provisions made for her, the wife agreed to release the husband from any further obligation to pay alimony or to support and maintain her. Under such an agreement and decree it would be unreasonable to reduce the payments ordered to be made. But insofar as the decision might be considered authority for the doctrine that the court has not jurisdiction to modify an award of alimony in a case where there has been a property settlement, we are not inclined to follow it. In the California cases cited by plaintiff, it appears that the contract provisions relative to installment payments were found to be an integral element in the settlement of property rights, and that this was the basis for the holdings that the court could not subsequently modify the decree. In Ettlinger v. Ettlinger, the opinion recites: A subsequent opinion by the Supreme Court of California, Hough v. Hough, 26 Cal. 2d 605, 160 P.2d 15, 18, clarifies and appears to set at rest the law of California relative to the issue here under discussion. It quotes with approval the following from 39 Michigan Law Review 128: The court then says: In the case before us the agreement provided for division of property to each of the parties which so far as shown appears to have been of approximately equal value. The language of the paragraph relating to monthly payments to the plaintiff clearly shows that it was intended to be for support of the plaintiff. It is expressly referred to as "alimony." The paragraph begins with the statement that "the second party agrees to pay to first party alimony in the sum of $400 per month during the life of the first party." It ends with the statement "The alimony and support money payments herein mentioned shall be paid to first party on or before the 5th day of each and every month." There is no statement anywhere in the agreement that the monthly payments constituted payment for plaintiff's interest in property decreed to defendant. In paragraph Sixth of the agreement, hereinabove quoted, the payments to be made to plaintiff are again referred to as "alimony." In view of these facts we hold that the payments must be considered alimony for support of plaintiff. We further hold that these provisions are not an inseparable part of the agreement relating to division of property and that by approval of the agreement in the decree the court did not divest itself of jurisdiction under the statute to make such subsequent changes and orders with respect to alimony payments as might be reasonable and proper, based upon change of circumstances. We hold this to be true even though the provisions of the agreement should be interpreted to mean that the parties intended to stipulate for a fixed and unalterable amount of monthly alimony. The object and purpose of the statute is to give the courts power to enforce, after divorce, the duty of support which exists between a husband and wife or parent and child. Legislators who enacted the law were probably aware of a fact, which is a matter of common knowledge to trial courts, that parties to divorce suits frequently enter into agreements relative to alimony or for child support which, if binding upon the courts, would leave children or divorced wives inadequately provided for. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the law was intended to give courts power to disregard the stipulations or agreements of the parties in the first instance and enter judgment for such alimony or child support as appears reasonable, and to thereafter modify such judgments when change of circumstances justifies it, regardless of attempts of the parties to control the matter by contract. Under the authorities herein cited such a view seems to be generally if not universally adhered to by the courts. If it were held otherwise in this case, in which a husband asks for reduction of alimony, it would establish a precedent which in future cases might prevent divorced wives in serious distress from obtaining increased alimony from ex-husbands possessed of wealth or ample income to provide for them. We hold that the trial court had power and jurisdiction to modify the decree of divorce with respect to the payments involved herein. Plaintiff's next contention, that the evidence does not support the trial court's findings, nor its conclusions of law and judgment, makes it necessary for us to review the evidence since this is an equity case. Clawson v. Wallace, 16 Utah 300, 52 P. 9; Utah Const. Art. 8, Sec. 9. However, there is little or no dispute between the parties as to the evidence. The testimony of witnesses is also substantially without conflict. The trial court found that the income of the defendant from his profession as a physician and surgeon at the time of the divorce was approximately $1,000 per month and that at the time of the proceedings for modification it had decreased to approximately $600 per month. Counsel for plaintiff contends that the decrease in income "is directly attributable to the luxury of a clinic which the defendant persists in maintaining" and it is asserted that voluntary impoverishment is not a ground for reduction of alimony. With the latter statement we agree, but we cannot say that the circumstances shown by the evidence as to maintenance of the clinic by defendant amounts to voluntary impoverishment. It may not have proved a profitable venture, but we cannot say that that could have been foreseen with any degree of certainty. We believe from a reading of the transcript and exhibits that the findings of the trial court are approximately correct as to the income of the defendant from his profession at the time of the decree and at the time of the order for modification. His income from other sources appears to have been approximately $7,000 per year at the time of the divorce, and almost entirely from stocks and bonds which were then divided approximately equally between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant's income from sources other than his profession during the year 1951 appears to have been $3,243.11 and in 1950, $3,250.62. The evidence shows that the defendant was fifty-eight years of age at time of proceedings for modification, that between April 1949 and November 1952 he had three examinations by a recognized heart specialist; that such examinations showed a developing abnormality of the heart, indicating coronary disease, and that the specialist had advised defendant to reduce his activities and avoid strain and exhaustion. We believe the evidence justified a finding that defendant's health has become impaired to some extent and that this condition will probably result in reducing defendant's income. We also believe that the evidence shows that plaintiff has a sufficient income from property owned by her to justify the court's ruling that defendant should not be required to pay her attorney fees and costs in these proceedings. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Each party to bear his or her own costs. WOLFE, C.J., and McDONOUGH and WADE, JJ., concur. CROCKETT, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate herein. HENRIOD, Justice, does not participate herein.