Opinion ID: 1224108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Spousal Maintenance Award

Text: ¶ 16 Having concluded that the parol evidence rule does not apply to a judgment, we determine whether the decree, on its face, establishes a fixed or an indefinite award of spousal maintenance. As quoted above, the decree states that Mr. Zale shall pay spousal maintenance to [Mrs. Zale] in the sum of $600.00 per month for the first 18 months following signing of decree; $750.00 per month thereafter;.... This spousal maintenance obligation shall be reviewed 36 months after the signing of this decree. ¶ 17 The plain language of the decree portrays an indefinite award of spousal maintenance. First, there are no words of limitation following the phrase $750.00 per month thereafter;.... There is no specified end to the duration. Second, to assume that the court intended maintenance to end after 36 months renders meaningless the provision for a review 36 months after the signing of this decree. See Stine v. Stine, 179 Ariz. 385, 388, 880 P.2d 142, 145 (App.1994) (A meaning should not be assigned to part of the language which would render another part meaningless....). Third, if the judgment were for a fixed term, the trial court would have had no jurisdiction to review the decree the day after the expiration of the 36 months. At that time, neither side objected to the court's continuing jurisdiction, which it retained only over the issue of maintenance for the period of time maintenance is awarded. ARIZ.REV.STAT. ANN. (A.R.S.) § 25-319(C); see Evitt v. Evitt, 179 Ariz. 183, 184, 877 P.2d 282, 283 (App.1994). Moreover, although Mr. Zale argues that an indefinite period of spousal maintenance is contrary to this state's public policy, it becomes acceptable if independence is unlikely to be achieved by Mrs. Zale. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. at 504-05, 869 P.2d at 180-81. ¶ 18 Further, Mr. Zale's efforts to compare and contrast the language of the minute entry with that of the decree are not persuasive. First, the reference to a separate document, the minute entry, is unnecessary given the language of the decree. Cf. Benson v. State, 108 Ariz. 513, 515, 502 P.2d 1332, 1334 (1972) (A judgment which is ambiguous and uncertain may be read in connection with the entire record and construed accordingly, quoting 46 AM.JUR.2D Judgments § 76 (1969)). Second, were there an ambiguity, the judgment rather than the minute entry controls. McFadden v. McFadden, 22 Ariz. 246, 250, 196 P. 452, 453 (1921). Third, the proffered doctrine of merger does not apply because the judgment makes no reference to the minute entry. See LaPrade v. LaPrade, 189 Ariz. 243, 247, 941 P.2d 1268, 1272 (1997).