Court Opinion

ID: 9569021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:09:46.410185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:36.247344
License: Public Domain

BROCK, Chief Judge.
The district court concluded as a matter of law that the November 17th Consent Judgment constituted a contract between plaintiff and defendant; that the agreement would be destroyed by a modification of the support provision inasmuch as the support and property distribution provisions constituted reciprocal consideration and were not separable; and that the November 17th Consent Judgment was not subject to modification without the consent of both parties. We cannot affirm these conclusions based upon the record which was before the district court and which is now before us.
It is clear in this jurisdiction that (1) an agreement for division of property rights, and (2) an order for the payment of alimony, within the accepted definition of that term, may be included as separable provisions in a consent judgment. Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E. 2d 240 (1964). In such a case, the alimony provision is subject to modification where it has been ordered by the district court. Bunn v. Bunn, supra; Seaborn v. Seaborn, 32 N.C. App. 556, 233 S.E. 2d 67 (1977). “However, if the support provision and the division of property constitute a reciprocal consideration so that the entire agreement would be destroyed by a modification of the support provision, they are not separable and may not be changed without the consent of both parties.” (Citations omitted.) Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. at 70, 136 S.E. 2d at 243. Stated somewhat differently in 2A Nelson on Divorce and Annulment (2d ed. rev. 1961) § 17.03, p. 25: “. . . whether a decree or award made pursuant to an agreement or arrangement between the parties is subject to modification may depend upon whether it is in effect an award of alimony or support, or an adjustment and settlement of property rights.”
Applying the quoted principle, the district court concluded as a matter of law that the property division and support provisions *476embodied in the consent judgment were reciprocal consideration and thus the support provision was not subject to modification.
We find nothing on the face of the consent judgment which indicates that the provision for alimony payments to plaintiff was part and parcel of a property division agreed to by plaintiff and defendant. The only North Carolina case we have found which expressly discusses the problem of whether support and property provisions are separable is Britt v. Britt, 36 N.C. App. 705, 245 S.E. 2d 381 (1978). In that case, a separation agreement expressly provided that its provisions were divisible. For a collection of cases from other jurisdictions dealing with the question, see Annot. 61 A.L.R. 3d 520, § 19-23 (1975).
The court in Scanlon v. Scanlon, 60 N.M. 43, 287 P. 2d 238 (1955) held an alimony provision severable from a property settlement, noting several factors which influenced its decision, including, inter alia:
— no showing that the property division would have been different if the support provision had not been made;
— no showing that the amount of support was determined out of any consideration of the value of any property the parties may have received under the terms of the agreement.
In Movius v. Movius, 163 Mont. 463, 517 P. 2d 884 (1974), factors considered by the court in finding an alimony provision severable included, inter alia:
— that the wife sought alimony in her pleadings, and the court awarded same;
— that the alimony was to terminate in case of wife’s remarriage;
— that the wife assumed no liabilities, nor was there any evidence that she gave up anything in the way of support and maintenance in consideration of a more favorable property division.
The court went on to say:
“In short, here there is no interrelationship between the alimony provisions and the property division that would *477destroy the rest of the contract if the amount of alimony payments were modified by the court. Absent such mutual interdependency, the alimony provisions of the agreement incorporated in the decree are not an integral part of the property settlement but are in all respects separable therefrom and subject to subsequent modification by the court in its discretion on a proper showing of changed circumstances.” 163 Mont. at 468, 517 P. 2d at 887.
The California courts have dealt extensively with the problem at hand. See, e.g., Plumer v. Plumer, 48 Cal. 2d 820, 313 P. 2d 549 (1957); DiMarco v. DiMarco, 60 Cal. 2d 387, 33 Cal. Rptr. 610, 385 P. 2d 2 (1963). These cases supply indicia that an agreement is integrated, thus precluding modification of support payments, including: agreement between husband and wife that their purpose is to reach a final settlement of rights and duties with respect to both property and support, that they intend that support provisions constitute reciprocal consideration for property provisions, and that they waive all rights arising out of the marital relationship except those expressly set out in the agreement.
It goes without saying that each case involving the issue at hand iptíst be decided upon its own facts. We are, however, guided by the reasoning and principles employed by courts of other jurisdictions which have considered the question, as reflected in the above cited cases. We are unable to agree with the district court that the alimony provisions of the consent judgment were other than as denominated, i.e., alimony. Much significance is attributed by the defendant to the recitals in the consent judgment and the judgment of divorce to the effect that all matters in controversy arising from the pleadings had been agreed upon. We do not consider such language determinable upon the question as to whether the support provision of the consent decree is separable, or instead constituted consideration for a property settlement. Matters in controversy which arose from the pleadings and were settled by the consent judgment included questions relating to abandonment, adultery, indignities, dependency, and support obligations, etc. Not in controversy on these pleadings were matters relating to the division of property owned jointly by the parties.
*478In sum, our holding is that there is nothing on the face of the record which was before the district court which would indicate that the periodic alimony payments which defendant was ordered to pay to plaintiff under the terms of the consent judgment constituted reciprocal consideration for a property division. There is nothing on the face of the consent decree to indicate, as a matter of law, that the alimony payments were anything other than “permanent alimony”, as so denominated.
The question remains, however, whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s motion on the alternative grounds that the only change in circumstances alleged was a substantial increase in defendant’s income. Notwithstanding that the district court found as a fact that such was the only change of circumstances alleged by plaintiff in order to determine the propriety of the entry of judgment of dismissal, we have examined plaintiff’s pleading to determine if the allegations contained therein were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. We hold that they were sufficient.
Paragraph 6 of plaintiff’s motion reads as follows:
“That the Plaintiff Sallie Walston White is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the defendant is currently earning in excess of $100,000.00 per year, which amounts to a substantial change in circumstances warranting an increase in the amount of permanent alimony that is to be paid to her by the Defendant, since the amount of $100.00 per week as set forth in the Judgment of November 17, 1969, is totally inadequate under the current circumstances.” (Emphasis added.)
While plaintiff would bear the burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances at a hearing upon the question of modification, the allegations to the effect that the then-current payments were inadequate were sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion. Specific allegations as to the basis of such inadequacy were not required. Elmore v. Elmore, 4 N.C. App. 192, 166 S.E. 2d 506 (1969).
For the reasons stated, the order of the district court dismissing plaintiff’s motion in the cause is reversed and this cause is remanded for a hearing.
*479Reversed and remanded.
Judge HEDRICK concurs.
Judge Mitchell dissents.