Court Opinion

ID: 9664652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:24:32.077004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:08.301314
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 28] I respectfully dissent. I believe the district court correctly interpreted the judgment.
[¶ 29] Although I agree with Justice Maring, writing in dissent, concerning the meaning of the term “eligible” to receive social security benefits, I am persuaded, as was the district court, that the inclusion of the January 2011 date is decisive. That date was included in the 2001 amended judgment. It continued to be included in the 2004 amended judgment. January 2011 is the date Maureen Slorby reaches the age of sixty-five. The advancement of age is inexorable. If the intent of the agreement was that spousal support should cease in 2008 when Maureen reached the age of sixty-two and became “eligible” for reduced social security benefits, the 2008 date would have replaced the 2011 date in the 2004 amended judgment.
[¶ 30] Furthermore, the difference in the amount of spousal support, $2000 per month, and the reduced social security benefit, $337, while not controlling, supports the conclusion that the intent of the judgment was that spousal support would end when Maureen became “eligible” for full social security benefits at age sixty-five. As the trial court found “it is common knowledge that under our current Social Security System a person receives reduced benefits if they retire prior to sixty-five (65).” In view of the 2011 date in the judgment, it is logical to interpret the judgment to mean spousal support would end when Maureen reached the age of sixty-five and was “eligible” to receive a Social Security benefit somewhat more comparable to the amount of spousal support.
[¶ 31] I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[¶ 32] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.