Title: Palmi v. Palmi
Citation: 140 N.W.2d 77
Docket Number: 39721
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: January 21, 1966

140 N.W.2d 77 (1966) Stella G. PALMI, Respondent, v. Sulo J. PALMI, Appellant. No. 39721. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 21, 1966. *78 Hoag &amp; Edwards, Duluth, for appellant. Bouschor &amp; McNulty, Duluth, for respondent. NELSON, Justice. Appeal from an order construing a divorce decree entered in an action commenced by Stella G. Palmi against her husband, Sulo J. Palmi. The petition for construction of said judgment by Stella G. Palmi was occasioned by her husband's claim that he was entitled to $2,000 plus one-half of the proceeds of any sale of a house owned jointly by the parties. The original decree provided in part as follows: The following memorandum was attached to the decree: The petition for construction was heard by the same judge before whom the original action was tried. Following the hearing an order was entered which provides in part as follows: This was accompanied by the following memorandum: The defendant contends on appeal that the judgment is clear and unambiguous upon its face and is therefore not open to interpretation or construction by the court; that it is only where the court finds that a judgment because of its language is of doubtful meaning or open to diverse construction that it may be clarified by the interpretation of the court. He contends that the judgment here took into account all the property owned by the parties. He argues that the order appealed from constitutes an amendment of the divorce decree entered pursuant to a motion to interpret the judgment contrary to Rule 60.02 of Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in part: 1. The statutes relating to alimony, support money, and division of property in divorce and annulment actions were recodified by L.1951, c. 551 (Minn.St. 518.54 to 518.67). This included the power of the court to alter or change orders or decrees of divorce. Minn.St. 518.64. Minn.St. 518.64 states: Section 518.58 reads as follows: Section 518.59 reads: *81 In Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 387, 133 N.W.2d 652, 662, this court said: 2-3. We held in Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, 255 Minn. 80, 96 N.W.2d 14, that the matter of awarding permanent alimony and support money rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. In the disposition of property acquired during coverture the court may, upon statutory authority, make such disposition as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the nature and determination of the issues in the case. It is clear that the division of the property in divorce proceedings in this state is regulated solely by statute and the applicable decision law. See, Cloutier v. Cloutier, 261 Minn. 324, 112 N.W.2d 347; 3 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2 ed.) § 28.17. 4. This court in Simons v. Munch, 127 Minn. 266, 149 N.W. 304, said that in arriving at the meaning of a judgment or decree the judgment as a whole should be considered in interpreting any particular clause or sentence therein, and if so considered there be any doubt or it be open to two constructions, the pleadings and findings or verdict may be resorted to, and that construction given which harmonizes with the record. In Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 70 N.W.2d 127, this court held that where judgment is ambiguous or indefinite in its terms a party might move the court for an order for its interpretation and clarification and it is within the province of such court to hear and determine the motion, and further said (244 Minn. 319, 70 N.W.2d 131): At a hearing upon a motion for such purpose, parol evidence may be received and considered for the purpose of determining what was intended by the judgment and to evolve a more definite expression thereof. It was held to be error in the Stieler case for the trial court to refuse to consider the motion to interpret and clarify an ambiguous judgment and to give definite expression to that which was intended thereby, and to reject evidence submitted for such purpose in support of the motion. See, also, Alvin v. Johnson, 245 Minn. 322, 71 N.W.2d 667, following Stieler. 5. In Parten v. First Nat. Bank &amp; T. Co., 204 Minn. 200, 283 N.W. 408, 120 A.L.R. 862, this court held that if a judgment or decree is ambiguous the whole record may be examined to ascertain its meaning, and that construction will be adopted which makes it such as ought to have been rendered. 6. Annotation, 67 A.L.R. 828, 832 (supplementing Annotation, 10 A.L.R. 526, 540), reads: And see, 1 Freeman, Judgments (5 ed.) § 201. In First Trust Sav. Bank v. United States F. &amp; G. Co., 163 Minn. 168, 171, *82 203 N.W. 612, 613, Mr. Justice Holt of this court said: See, 10 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 5049; Parten v. First Nat. Bank &amp; T. Co. supra; 1 Freeman, Judgments (5 ed.) §§ 76 and 77. Divorce decrees should be given that interpretation which will render them reasonable, effective, and conclusive and which will make them harmonize with facts and law of the case. Simon v. Simon (Fla. App.), 123 So. 2d 41. Construction of its own decree by the trial court must be given great weight in determining the intent of the trial court. Krick v. Krick, 76 Nev. 52, 348 P.2d 752. The decree in a divorce suit must be construed in the light of applicable statutes. Paulson v. Paulson, 267 Wis. 639, 66 N.W.2d 700. It is obvious in the case at bar that the trial court could not practically award any alimony due to the defendant's disability. For that reason the award to the plaintiff intended by the trial court seems just and equitable. The divorce decree has, in the instant case, been clarified by the tribunal which originally entered the decree. The decree as now clarified completely expresses the terms of the original findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment and what was in truth intended thereby, namely, that the title to the homestead become absolute in plaintiff upon payment to defendant of the sum of $2,000.00. The interpretative order is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.