Court Opinion

ID: 9539341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:02:37.653495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:44.174727
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The decree of the lower court, insofar as it awarded defendant rights in *124the real property involved, is inequitable and not supported by the record.
Both the trial judge and the majority of this court, while recognizing its existence and validity, have failed to give the reconciliation agreement of December 5, 19S3, its proper consideration. Under this agreement the defendant conveyed to plaintiff all of his interest in the real property. Plaintiff agreed not to change or alter, during the defendant’s lifetime, her will which she had executed. The will provided that, upon plaintiff’s death, the real property would go to her two daughters subject to a life estate in the defendant. The defendant, in consideration for his wife’s forgiveness and the dismissal of the divorce complaint, was willing that she become the sole owner of the real property.
Such agreements are valid and enforceable 1 and, like property settlement agreements between spouses,2 should be upheld in divorce proceedings if they are fair and free from fraud. However, both the decree of the lower court and the decree formulated by the majority of this court almost completely nullify the terms and plain intent of the reconciliation agreement.
Both decrees award the defendant a share of the rents received from the property and a share of the proceeds if the property is sold. There is nothing in the agreement to support such an award and nothing in the-record to justify it. By awarding defendant a greater interest in the property than he-had under the agreement, he is being rewarded for conduct justifying plaintiff a. divorce and penalizing her. It is an injustice to compel this plaintiff to surrender to the defendant that which he had freely given as an inducement for her return to-him.3
Nor can the decrees be supported by the-record. The plaintiff made the down payment of $4,000 to purchase the property. All subsequent payments, except the last payment of $700 made by her daughter, have-been made by the plaintiff from income received from the property and her owns funds. She likewise has paid for all utilities- and maintenance expenses. True, the record substantiates defendant’s claim that he contributed repair and remodeling to the property in a value of approximately $2,-300.00. However, this was done prior to> the agreement of December 5, 1953!
Throughout most of their married life, plaintiff has been employed and supported herself. This is true for the entire time since 1953. What circumstances as shown in the record can possibly justify awarding the defendant a greater interest in the real property than he had under the reconciliation agreement? Under the decrees he is *125awarded the automobile and all of his personal property, including his savings. It must be concluded that the award is inequitable and that the trial judge abused his discretion.
Comment should he made upon another aspect of the case. Shortly prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff’s daughter paid the balance of $700 due under the contract of purchase. Then the plaintiff, about one or two days before filing her complaint, deeded the property to her daughter. The trial judge took a rather dim view of this transaction and considered it a concealment of assets which should be available for distribution. He declared the deed to the daughter a nullity and ordered the plaintiff to secure a reconveyance. Whether or not this was a concealment of an asset which could properly be distributed, it is doubtful that the lower court’s determination and order was proper in the absence of the daughter as a party to the proceeding.
The decision of the lower court should be reversed.

. Rest. of Contracts, Sec. 585; 17 Am. Jur. p. 268, Rodgers v. Rodgers, 229 N.Y. 255, 128 N.E. 117, 11 A.L.R. 277.

. 27A C.J.S. Divorce § 234, p. 1064.

. See: Levine v. Levine, 204 Ga. 313, 49 S.E.2d 814, 4 A.L.R.2d 1205.