Court Opinion

ID: 9593988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:26:08.253049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:14.140600
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in the majority opinion but would state my specific reasons for concurring in Part V.
I personally read the agreement as unambiguously providing for support for the son Grant through August 1985, but since the two trial judges as well as members of this Court have disagreed as to the meaning of the agreement, apparently it is ambiguous.
My reading follows the following line of reasoning:
The early recitals in the agreement stated the parties are providing for the custody and support of their minor children. Paragraph VI is entitled “SUPPORT OF MINOR CHILDREN.” At the December 1981 date the agreement was executed the children were then minors, being ages 15, 12 and 11 respectively. Counsel for husband argues that the foregoing uses of the word “minor” indicate no support will be paid beyond majority.
To test that argument we must read the text of the several paragraphs which follow the heading. As to the eldest child, Grant, whose support beyond age 18 is being questioned, the text reads as follows in a skeletonized fashion:
(1) Husband agrees to pay Wife $333.33 per month for support of Grant.
(2) Payments under (1) are to commence September 1981 and continue to and including August 1985. (Note— Grant became 18 in May 1984.)
(3) Commencing September 1, 1985, payment for the children “who are then yet minors” will be $500 each per month.
Thus, the payments were a level $1,000 per month both before and after August 1985 (subject to the adjustment for the Price Index formula) and two things indicate the parties knew Grant would come of age and still receive payments for 13 more months.
1. Paragraph 2 referred to “Grant,” not “minor child,” as receiving payment to the date certain, August 1985; and
2. Paragraph 3 made the adjustment to keep the figure at $1,000 per month by reference to children who are “yet minors.”
TOWLES, J., Pro Tem., concurs.