Court Opinion

ID: 9739027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:07:29.868035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.696275
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Admittedly, the stipulation incorporated into the decree in the present case neglected to use the magic words expressly divesting the court of jurisdiction as in Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501, 502 (Minn.1989). However, the language waiving further maintenance in this case is clear and concise and leaves no room for doubt as to what the parties intended and agreed to, namely, to only provide respondent with maintenance for a period of ten years.
“The fundamental approach for construing contracts is to allow the intent of the parties to prevail.” Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn.1979) (citations omitted).
*609The parties entered into an agreement and should be bound by its terms. Parties in a dissolution,
especially when represented by counsel, must be expected to honor their contracts the same as anyone else. Any other holding would result in chaos in the family law field and declining respect for binding agreements as well.
Karon, 435 N.W.2d at 504. This court should enforce the agreement of the parties in this case.