Court Opinion

ID: 9547840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:53:04.310881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:08.997729
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Justice,
dissenting:
I dissent. I would remand the case to the trial court to supplement the Findings of Fact since implicit in that court’s ruling was the conclusion that there had been a material change of circumstances.
When the trial court denied the petition of the defendant made on May 9, 1980 to have the home sold and the proceeds divided, it gave the defendant leave to reassert that request “at such time as the last of the minor children no longer resides there with the plaintiff.” One year later the defendant, acting pursuant to that leave, again requested the court to order the sale of the home and division of the proceeds, basing the Order to Show Cause solely upon his affidavit that the last minor child of the parties had married and no longer lived in their residence. It is that Order to Show Cause which is before us in this appeal.
It was not disputed at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause that there were no minor children then living in the home. Counsel for defendant urged this fact as a material change of circumstances. Although the trial court made no specific finding on that fact in its written Decision, it concluded “that to allow plaintiff the right to hold the home exclusively until such time as she decides to sell the same would not be equitable to defendant in his realizing his acknowledged interest therein.” I think implicit in that statement was a finding that because minor children were no longer present in the home, it would be equitable to order the home sold now.
As pointed out by the majority opinion, when the Findings of Fact were drawn, nothing was stated specifically therein con*1216cerning the absence of minor children in the home. Neither was it stated that the court found a change of circumstances. The findings only mention the defendant’s lack of counsel, his drinking and mistaken belief as to the effect of the stipulation which he signed regarding the house. However, a finding of a change of circumstances is implicit in the court’s ruling as explained above. This, in view of the court’s denial of the defendant’s request at an earlier time when minor children were in the home, would compel me to simply remand the case to the trial court for it to augment its findings in order to reflect its full and complete reasoning and basis for modifying the decree.
STEWART, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HOWE, J.