Compton v. Compton
| Decision Date | 29 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12809,12809 |
| Citation | 101 Idaho 328,612 P.2d 1175 |
| Parties | Lilian M. COMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Roger COMPTON, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Charles D. Coulter of Coulter & Roos, Charles E. Mooney of Lyons, Mooney & Bohner, Boise, for plaintiff-appellant.
Loren C. Ipsen of Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton, Boise, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff-appellant Lilian M. Compton (hereafter wife) and defendant-respondent J. Roger Compton (hereafter husband) were married on June 15, 1956. In early 1974 the two were separated and in July of that year wife instituted an action for divorce. On August 19, 1974, husband not appearing, a default judgment of divorce was granted. As we indicate below, the present action does not take the form of an appeal from the entry of divorce or a motion to modify the decree: the record leaves no doubt that this action is one independent of the 1974 action for divorce.
The divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement which the parties had entered on August 15, 1974. The agreement, signed by both parties and by their attorneys, provides for distribution of property and for custody of the parties' two minor children.
Two and one-half years later, in early 1977, wife filed the present suit seeking to set aside the property settlement agreement on the grounds that it had been procured by misrepresentation and fraud on the part of husband. Her complaint prayed for damages to adjust the inequitable distribution of the community property, and for punitive damages. After filing of affidavits and limited discovery, the court granted husband's motion for summary judgment, and wife appeals.
Husband's motion for summary judgment was supported by various affidavits, including his own, two of his accountant, Marcel Learned, and one of wife's attorney at the time of the property settlement agreement. Husband's affidavit states that at the time wife requested a divorce she indicated a desire for husband to have custody of their two minor children, and to take no part of the community property, so that it would all be available for husband to provide proper support for the children. Husband also states that he discouraged an unequal settlement and urged wife to contact his accountant so as to arrive at an equitable division. In his affidavit, the accountant states that wife and her attorney met with him to discuss the financial condition of the community, and that wife again indicated that she wished to take no part of the community property. He states that he also encouraged her to consider an equitable division, and that they finally arrived at an appropriate figure. The affidavit of wife's then attorney states that wife did not wish to achieve a mathematically equal division of the community since she felt that husband would need the extra assets to care for the children. The property settlement agreement provides that wife is to receive an automobile, various household effects, beneficiary interest in a life insurance policy, half-interest in a property investment and $24,000 to be paid in monthly $200 installments; it also grants husband the remainder of the community and provides that he retain custody of the two minor children.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, wife filed her affidavit in which she states that prior to the formation of the property settlement agreement in 1974, she had had numerous occasions to discuss property issues with husband and that at all times he had represented to her that the community was worth little. She also states that during the marriage she had little or nothing to do with decisions regarding investment or management of the community and that in forming the property settlement agreement she relied entirely upon the representations of husband and his accountant.
Deposition of wife and two bankers, supplemental affidavits of wife, and the affidavit of the head bookkeeper of Compton Transfer & Storage Company were also before the court in ruling on husband's motion.
The district court assumed, without specifically deciding, that the allegations of fraud in the complaint invoked the jurisdiction of the court, and that wife failed to show clearly and convincingly that husband had procured the property settlement agreement by fraud or misrepresentation. It therefore granted husband's motion.
On appeal, wife urges that the district court erred in treating her action as one to modify a divorce decree rather than as one for reformation of a contract; that the burden of proof of the absence of fraud rested on husband and that he failed to carry that burden; and that the district court erred in considering the affidavit of wife's former attorney.
Determining the correct posture of this action requires us to determine whether the property settlement agreement was merged into the divorce decree. Of course, merger, or its absence, is a question of the parties' intent. In this case we may look to both the agreement itself, and the divorce decree. Paragraph XIV of the agreement reads as follows.
Paragraph 5 of the divorce decree states:
(Emphasis added.)
The language of these two documents is perhaps sufficiently clear for us to hold that it was the intent of the parties that the agreement be merged in the decree. But this court has made it clear that in close cases a presumption will be indulged in favor of a finding of merger. Phillips v. Phillips, 93 Idaho 384, 462 P.2d 49 (1969). After Phillips, if there are cross-references between the property settlement agreement and the divorce decree, a merger will be presumed unless the parties make it clear that the reference and inclusion is for some other purpose. We therefore hold that the parties' property settlement agreement in this case was merged in the later divorce decree, and as a result, that wife's action in this case is an independent one to attack the property settlement portions of the final judgment of divorce and not, as she has argued, to modify or rescind a contract.
It is, of course, the general rule that once a judgment issues it is res judicata with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated. There are a number of avenues, however, for attacking a judgment. It is subject to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court within 42 days of its entry, I.C. § 13-201, I. A.R. 14(a); and the parties may move the district court to amend the judgment, or for a new trial, within ten days of its entry, I.R.C.P. 59(b) and 59(e). In this case these time limits have long since passed. In addition, in Idaho, divorce decrees may always be modified with respect to alimony, I.C. § 32-706, and child custody, I.C. § 32-705. As noted above, however, this case involves the property settlement portions of a decree, and this court has specifically held that such portions of the decree are not modifiable, except by motion in the original action within the applicable time limitations. Paul v. Paul, 97 Idaho 889, 556 P.2d 365 (1976); Lowe v. Lowe, 92 Idaho 208, 440 P.2d 141 (1968).
Finally, provision for the modification of all final judgments is made in I.R.C.P. 60(b). The rule provides for two means of attacking a decree: first, by motion, for the reasons set out in 60(b)(1) through (6). I.R.C.P. 60(b)(3), provides for modification where the judgment is obtained by "fraud (whether heretofore denominated extrinsic or intrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party . . . ." The rule also provides, however, that a motion for modification made pursuant to 60(b)(3) must be made within 6 months of the judgment's having become final. That time limit has, again, passed in this case. Lest confusion arise, we note specifically that such a motion would be made within the context of the original action as opposed to taking the form of a separate action altogether, with which were are presented in the instant case.
I.R.C.P. 60(b) also specifically preserves three preexisting means of attacking a final judgment. This part of the rule reads as follows:
"This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papin v. Papin, Docket No. 45277
...by concealing the very existence of particular items or amounts of property. Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Compton v. Compton , 101 Idaho 328, 336, 612 P.2d 1175, 1183 (1980) ). "When such an agreement is attacked the husband has the burden of clearly showing that it was fair in every parti......
-
In re Hutchinson
...663 P.2d 187, 191–92 (1983) (en banc); see also Bates v. Bates , 1 Ariz.App. 165, 400 P.2d 593, 597 (1965) ; Compton v. Compton , 101 Idaho 328, 612 P.2d 1175, 1182–83 (1980). Minnesota has held that asset nondisclosure on a stipulation amounts to fraud on the court because "the court ... s......
-
Lasater v. Guttmann
...State, 206 Ariz. 462, 80 P.3d 269 (Ariz.2003)); California (Cal. Fam.Code §§ 1100(e), 1101 (West 2004)); Idaho ( Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328, 612 P.2d 1175, 1182-83 (1980)); Louisiana (La. Civ.Code Ann. arts. 2354, 2369 (2009)); Nevada ( Williams v. Waldman, 108 Nev.466, 836 P.2d 614,......
-
In re Marriage of Hutchinson
...Modnick, 663 P.2d 187, 191-92 (Cal. 1983) (en banc); see also Bates v. Bates, 400 P.2d 593, 597 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1965); Compton v. Compton, 612 P.2d 1175, 1182-83 (Idaho 1980). Minnesota has held that asset nondisclosure on a stipulation amounts to fraud on the court because "the court . . . s......