Court Opinion

ID: 9883716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:14:23.902539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:29.651344
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge
(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly construed the language in *160the original decree to permit renewal of the notes secured by the parties’ jointly owned shares of stock without appellant’s consent. However, after reaching that conclusion, in the interests of fairness, I would have remanded to the trial court with directions to further construe a latent ambiguity. A clarification of the property division, which does not result in a judgment different from the original, does not conflict with the general rule that property divisions are final. Thompson v. Thompson, 385 N.W.2d 20, 22 (1986), citing Stieler v. Stieler, 244 Minn. 312, 70 N.W.2d 127 (1955).
At the present time, the outstanding loan principal is approximately $33,000. Since the dissolution, the stock has split. The stock presently trades at about forty dollars per share. Due to prior stock releases, respondent has reduced the portion of his stock held by the bank to 300 shares, while 1050 of the shares held by the bank are attributable to appellant. The value of the Merrill Lynch stock held by the bank is therefore around $54,000. The value of appellant’s shares alone is about $42,000. Should the stock be sold now and the loan entirely paid off, most of the balance would belong to appellant.
Respondent’s financial interest in this matter is thus minimal compared to appellant’s. Respondent will suffer no loss if the stock is liquidated to pay the loan. Appellant will gain her own cash for her own use, which is denied her now by respondent’s actions. If respondent is entitled to indefinitely renew these loans and only pay on the interest, appellant is forever deprived of her share of the stock which represents the excess of the amount needed to cover the loan.
Respondent’s attorney concedes that under the trial court’s interpretation of the decree, respondent is never legally required to pay off the principal on the loan. Respondent can indefinitely control appellant’s stock by keeping the interest current and renewing the existing loans. Arguably, respondent’s estate could continue to pay only the interest, renew the loans indefinitely, and deprive appellant of her share of the stock.
I cannot find that the parties originally intended such an indefinite agreement, and I therefore find a latent ambiguity in the decree. I would hold that, implicit in the decree, is the concept that within some reasonable time the loans would be paid off and the remaining stock returned to the party or parties entitled to receive it.
Respondent argues that he does not wish to default because he has a credit rating and a business reputation to maintain. Since he has the equivalent of cash as collateral for the loan, appellant would not default by exercising his option to have the collateral applied against the loan to pay it off. Here, the liquid stock with a cash value of $42,000 supports a loan of $33,000. Respondent is entitled to direct the bank to liquidate the proceeds, take the check, pay off the principal in full, and distribute the remainder to himself and appellant. That would not be a default. Under these circumstances, it would constitute a fair and prudent business practice.