Hellman v. Hellman

• Decision Date: 09 August 1957
• Docket Number: No. 37105,37105
• Citation: 84 N.W.2d 367,250 Minn. 422
• Parties: Hilda HELLMAN, Respondent, v. Martin HELLMAN, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 367

84 N.W.2d 367

250 Minn. 422

Hilda HELLMAN, Respondent, v. Martin HELLMAN, Appellant.

No. 37105.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 9, 1957.

Hiram Z. Mendow, Minneapolis, for respondent.

MURPHY, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of divorce of the district court entered June 28, 1956, and from an order of said court denying certain parts of the defendant's motion to modify said judgment.

Hilda and Martin Hellman were married on November 8, 1937. They have three children from the marriage aged 13, 13, and 10. Sometime prior to 1955, the marriage relationship began to disintegrate. In December 1954, Martin Hellman was informed by letter from his wife's attorney that she desired to obtain a divorce. The letter also made suggestions concerning a property settlement and support arrangements. On February 9, 1955, a divorce action was commenced by Hilda Hellman. On the same date a stipulation was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for purposes of 'settling all questions of property rights, support money, alimony, care and custody of children, and support of children, and for the purpose of eliminating controversy, with reference thereto.' The stipulation included provisions whereby the defendant, Martin Hellman, would pay $125 per week to the plaintiff, Hilda Hellman, for the support of the minor children; plaintiff would receive title to the home and furnishings of the parties, which she could sell under certain conditions; she would retain her automobile; she would receive $5,000 upon execution of the stipulation and $25,000 as permanent alimony payable in ten annual installments; and after ten years she would receive a fully paid up $10,000 life insurance policy on the defendant's life naming her as beneficiary. ¹ The defendant, Martin Hellman, was to receive all his personal property in their home, including all his work tools and equipment.

The divorce decree was entered on June 28, 1956. ² It incorporated all the provisions of the stipulation Except that Mrs. Hellman was authorized to retain the work tools and equipment, to sell them, and to apply the proceeds as a credit to alimony due or thereafter to become due. The defendant was substantially in default on the payment of temporary alimony and support money as provided by order of the court dated June 21, 1955. The decree was entered in a default proceeding. No answer was entered on behalf of the defendant nor did he appear to contest the action. Some of the tools were thereafter sold by the plaintiff.

In July 1956, the defendant moved to modify the divorce decree and obtained an order temporarily restraining the plaintiff from disposing of the home of the parties or the tools of the defendant. In support of this motion the defendant alleged that the stipulation was entered through mistake; that the provisions in the decree concerning property were different from the stipulation; that the decree was unfair and did not reflect the intent of the parties; and that the defendant's financial status had materially changed. In August 1956, the plaintiff sought to have the defendant held in contempt of court for failing to make support payments ordered in the divorce decree.

The two motions were heard together. At the beginning of the hearing the court stated that it would 'not consider the reopening of the property settlement,' and that it would consider only the question of the support payments for the children and the question concerning the tools. On September 28, 1956, the trial court ordered that the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in contempt be denied. As to the defendant's motion, the trial court (1) dismissed the restraining order, (2) reduced the support payments for the three children from $125 per week to $67.50 per week, (3) denied the request for amendment concerning the tools, (4) applied the $2,750 received by the plaintiff from the sale of the tools as a credit on the amount owed by the defendant under the property agreement, and (5) ordered the immediate return to the defendant of all tools which were then in the possession of the plaintiff.

The memorandum of the trial court reasoned that insofar as there was any mistake it was unilateral and the defendant is bound by the decree to which he agreed, but that the defendant is entitled to an amendment of the terms of the decree. The trial court cited Hafner v. Hafner, 237 Minn. 424, 54 N.W.2d 854; Elsen v. State Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 219 Minn. 315, 17 N.W.2d 652; Olson v. Shephard, 165 Minn. 433, 206 N.W. 711; C. H. Young Co. v. Springer, 113 Minn. 382, 129 N.W. 773. The memorandum termed the reduction in support payments as 'appropriate under the circumstances;' indicated that the defendant's 'conduct and the things he said justified the plaintiff in selling (the) tools and justified the Court in making the finding that it did;' and stated that the defendant was not guilty of contempt even though he was in considerable default.

The contentions of the defendant (appellant) before this court are: (1) That the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow evidence on the issue of whether or not to modify the divorce decree with regard to alimony payments; (2) that the conduct of the parties between the signing of the stipulation and the granting of the divorce did not constitute a subsequent binding agreement which would justify the action of the plaintiff whereby she sold the tools contrary to the stipulation; and (3) that, in granting the decree of divorce, the court 'should have rejected the stipulation and accepted only the portions as might have been advisable under the circumstances and then ordered a division of the property and award of alimony based upon its sound judicial discretion as warranted by the facts' after determining whether the provisions of the stipulation were 'fair, just and equitable.'

The plaintiff argues (1) that in the interval between the filing of the motion for modification and the entry of the decree of divorce there had been no substantial change in the defendant's circumstances to warrant revision of the judgment; (2) that the trial judge did in fact hear testimony relating to the change in circumstances and this was reflected also in his decision and memorandum; (3) that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to modify the alimony payments and in permitting the sale of certain tools as a credit against unpaid alimony; and (4) that the observation by the trial judge that he 'will not consider the reopening of the property settlement in this case' cannot be used to contradict the order of the court from which this appeal was taken.

1. At the time of a divorce, the trial court may, subject to statutory limitations, make such disposition of property acquired by the parties during coverture and such award of alimony ³ as shall appear just and equitable considering all the circumstances of the case. M.S.A. §§ 518.58 and 518.60. After an order or decree for alimony or support money has been entered, the court may, from time to time on the petition of either party, revise or alter such order respecting the amount of alimony or support to be paid, and it may make any other order respecting these matters which might have been made in the original action with certain exceptions not relevant here. § 518.64.

2. It rests in the sound discretion of the trial court to initially determine the amount of alimony. ⁴ Likewise, a petition to modify the alimony provisions of a divorce decree is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and it will be granted only upon clear proof of facts showing that the circumstances of the parties have been so substantially changed since the divorce that modification is equitable. The decision of the trial court in these matters will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. ⁵

3. Where the divorce decree has adopted a stipulation agreed upon by the parties, such stipulations are purely advisory to the court and do not limit its discretionary power to determine whether a future change in circumstances warrants revision, but they are entitled to considerable evidentiary weight which will make the court more reluctant to modify the original decree than it would otherwise be, ⁶ particularly where the parties have had the benefit of able counsel in so stipulating. ⁷ Stipulations of this kind are deemed to have been entered into in view of the authority conferred upon the court by statute and they are merged into the judgment, but they are not contracts which bind the court or preclude it from making such changes as the changes in circumstances justify. Mark v. Mark, supra.

4. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion as the defendant contends. There is no clear proof that the decree, as modified, is so inequitable that the trial court erred in refusing to grant to the defendant all the relief he requested. The trial court did in fact receive testimony relating to the financial condition of the defendant at the time the stipulation was signed and relating to the changes in his financial circumstances...