Opinion ID: 1208274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Construction Of A Decree

Text: The wife argues the divorce decree is unclear on its face in that it purports to afford a retroactive remedy. She directs us to those decree provisions which require permanent support alimony to commence before the date of the decree's entry. These provisions, she urges, are in conflict and cannot be read together. Once a judgment has become final for want of an appeal or in consequence of an appellate court's decision, any controversy over the meaning and effect of that judgment must be resolved by resorting solely to the face of the judgment roll. [23] The meaning of a judgment is to be divined from the terms expressed in its text, which is to be construed with the other parts of the judgment roll. [24] Only if a judgment is ambiguous on the face of the record proper may the court reach it for construction. When called upon to so do, the court stands confined to an inspection of the judgment roll. It cannot extend its inquiry dehors the instruments that comprise the roll. [25] We hold that the wife may not secure the relief she seeks by characterizing this proceeding as one to construe an earlier judgment. The judgment roll presents no ambiguity to be construed. [26] The consent decree explicitly awards $135,900 in support alimony, payable in monthly installments of $900 (or a total of 151 payments), and declares that June 15, 1979 is the date the first support alimony installment is due.