Day v. Day
Decision Date | 15 September 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 4738,4738 |
Parties | Frances Statter DAY, Appellant, v. Fairfield Pope DAY, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Leslie B. Gray, Reno, for appellant.
John P. Thatcher, Reno, for respondent.
By motion pursuant to NRS 125.180 a former wife sought an order directing the entry of judgment for the amount of arrears claimed to be due for her support under a Nevada divorce decree granted April 7, 1949. 1 The decree approved, adopted and confirmed a written agreement which, inter alia, provided for the wife's future support. One of the agreement's provisions expressly stated that the agreement was not to be merged into any decree of divorce entered later. 2 However, the decree did not itself state that the agreement was not merged, nor did it expressly provide that the agreement survive the decree. As indicated, the decree approved, adopted and confirmed the agreement. Additionally, it ordered the parties to perform the obligations of the agreement, and gave judgment to each against the other according to its terms. As NRS 125.180 requires a judgment for the payment of money, or an order directing the payment thereof, before its remedial provisions are effective, the former husband moved to dismiss the proceeding, urging that the sole remedy of his former spouse was upon the agreement. His motion was granted, and this appeal by the former wife followed. We reverse.
In Ballin v. Ballin, 78 Nev. 224, 371 P.2d 32, we mentioned the uncertainty which developed in Nevada case law before the 1953 enactment of NRS 123.080(4), 3 as to the legal effect of a divorce decree which, among other things, 'adopted' an agreement. We there stated,
As the agreement in the present case was made before the 1953 statute, we must first resolve the inconsistent expresions of the Lewis and Finley cases. In line with Lewis we hold that the adoption of an agreement by the trial court effectuates a merger of the agreement into the decree entered. A merger destroys the independent existence of the agreement and the rights of the parties thereafter rest solely upon the decree. We overrule any contrary expression in Finley.
However, our resolution of the inconsistency between Lewis and Finley does not decide the further question presented here--one which was not before the court in either Lewis or Finley--namely, the effect, if any, to be given a provision of an agreement that the agreement shall not be merged in the decree and shall survive the decree, when the decree adopts the agreement but does not specifically direct survival.
In Ballin v. Ballin, 78 Nev. 224, 371 P.2d 32 ( ), we decided a closely related problem. There, though the decree used isolated words of merger, the agreement and the decree each specifically directed survival. We held, 'In our view, the support clause in an agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mack v. Estate of Mack
...court relied on our opinion in Finley v. Finley, 65 Nev. 113, 118, 189 P.2d 334, 336 (1948), overruled on other grounds by Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 395 P.2d 321 (1964), for authority to enter an order nunc pro tunc to render the record truthful as to the acts done or intended to be done by ......
-
Fernandez v. Fernandez
...a case in which the agreement was "neither incorporated in nor merged in the judgment and decree of the trial court." See Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 395 P.2d 321 (1964) (a spousal support agreement is merged into the divorce decree and loses its character as an independent agreement unless bo......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...of the marital settlement agreement, and parties may no longer seek to enforce the agreement under contract principles. See Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 389–90, 395 P.2d 321, 322–23 (1964) ; Renshaw v. Renshaw, 96 Nev. 541, 543, 611 P.2d 1070, 1071 (1980). After merger, the district court may e......
-
Day v. Day
...in 1949. The decree approved an agreement between the parties which this court previously held was merged in the decree. Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 395 P.2d 321 (1964). Frances, by remand of that action, seeks a money judgment against Fairfield for alleged arrearages under the decree. He cont......