Court Opinion

ID: 9690226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:57:59.475283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:12.076311
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Justice.
This case comes to the writer by reassignment.
Plaintiff and defendant were married on September 21, 1945. Roth had previously been married.
In an action for divorce brought in June 1948, judgment was entered for plaintiff, the wife. Thereupon, defendant moved the court for an order directing plaintiff to turn over to him $900, which he claimed was his property and which had not been disposed of in the divorce proceedings. No motion was made to amend the findings or the conclusions of law. The court denied the motion, and defendant appeals. No question as to procedure is raised.
It is undisputed that in October 1947 defendant sold his car for $900, which sum was paid to him in cash. Since the money was paid to him on a Saturday, when he was unable to deposit it, plaintiff offered to take care of the cash for him and promised that she would return it. So defendant turned over to her the $900 for safekeeping. It was not returned. Some months later plaintiff brought her action for divorce against defendant.
In an affidavit made in connection with plaintiff’s request for temporary alimony, she states:
“* * * Plaintiff has at all times offered to make available to the defendant the sum of $900.00 which he received from the sale *426of his automobile and which he placed in the possession of the plaintiff for safekeeping, * *
In a motion for amendment of the order granting temporary alimony, defendant asked modification to the effect that the sum of $900 held by plaintiff and belonging to him be used by plaintiff to apply against alimony until the sum of $900 is exhausted. In an affidavit in connection with this motion, plaintiff stated:
“7. That affiant still retains the $900 in currency given her by defendant for safekeeping, * * *. Affiant has retained said $900 in application in part upon the $10,000 which defendant admittedly owes to her in consequence of her expenditures in that amount out of her separate funds during the marriage of the parties.”
On July 14, 1948, the parties stipulated that “plaintiff is to retain the $900.00 which she has in her possession, claimed by defendant as his own, pending the outcome of plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for the sum of $10,000.00,” and the court so ordered. At the trial of the action at the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant withdrew his cross bill and answer, and plaintiff was granted a divorce. In a stipulation adjusting financial matters between the parties, which stipulation was signed shortly before the trial, the parties agreed:
“III.
“That the defendant will pay to the plaintiff the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), but plaintiff will be entitled to no other right, title, interest or distribution in or of defendant’s property of any kind or nature.” and
“IV.
“That each party does mutually surrender and disclaim all right, title and interest in the property of the other, which surrender and disclaimer shall include any rights of any kind on the part of one party against the estate of the other.”
During the negotiations which resulted in the stipulation, nothing was said about the $900 or the $10,000 claim of plaintiff against defendant above referred to.
*427In its findings of fact, the court found, among .other things:
«VI.
“.That the plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement and stipulation of which the court approved and makes a part of these findings, to-wit:
*****
“C. That defendant will pay to the plaintiff upon the entry of judgment herein the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). That plaintiff is not entitled to any other right, title, interest or distribution in or of defendant’s property of any kind or nature.
“D. That the plaintiff and defendant do mutually surrender and disclaim any right, title or interest in the properties of the other, which surrender and disclaimer shall include any rights of any kind on the part of one party against the estate of the other.”
The wording of the stipulation, made a part of the findings, is to the effect that plaintiff (see Findings, par. VI[C]) is not entitled to any right in defendant’s property of any kind or nature, and that each (Id., par. VI[D]) disclaims any right in the property of the other, including any right of any kind against the estate of the ■other. The parties prior to the signing of the stipulation agreed that the $900 was the property of defendant and held by plaintiff for ■safekeeping for defendant — a bailment. The $10,000 claim of plaintiff against defendant was, as it is described, merely a claim and not the property of plaintiff. It is evident, therefore, based on the wording of the stipulation, that if the $900 was the property of defendant the plaintiff had no right in or to it.
It is true that the conclusions of law of the court contain the following paragraph:
“VI.
“That except as herein set forth, neither party shall have any right, title or interest against the other party or against the estate of the other party.”
It is equally clear that the court did not intend, by the above provision, to change the stipulation of the parties. In the findings of the court it is unequivocally stated:
*428“VI.
“That the plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement and stipulation of which the court approved and makes a part of these findings, * * (Italics supplied.)
The sum of $900 here involved came into the hands of plaintiff as a bailee. It so remained, and, as such, it remained the property of defendant. If, instead of turning over to plaintiff the proceeds of the sale of the automobile for safekeeping,. defendant had delivered to plaintiff the automobile itself before it was sold, we do not believe that anyone would contend that plaintiff had a right to keep it under the terms of this stipulation. It should make no difference whether the bailment consists of the automobile or the proceeds from the sale thereof. It was defendant’s property in either event and so remained. Plaintiff agreed to accept $5,000 and in turn relinquished all her right, title, or interest in defendant’s property of any kind or nature. That includes his money, as well as other property. She has received what she bargained for and is; entitled to no more.
Reversed.