In re Siragusa, A160162
| Decision Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | A160162 |
| Citation | 291 Or.App. 644,422 P.3d 337 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the MARRIAGE OF Richard SIRAGUSA, Petitioner-Respondent, and Kimberly Siragusa, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Samuel A. Ramirez argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
David G. Brown argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Merrill O’Sullivan, LLP.
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.*
This case concerns the interpretation of a provision in a stipulated judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court agreed with husband that a provision in the dissolution judgment that he pay wife $50,000 was conditioned upon his sale of the marital residence in the ordinary course and that his loss of the property in foreclosure relieved him of any obligation to pay wife. The trial court entered a supplemental judgment that deemed that provision of the judgment to have been satisfied and that sustained husband’s objection to wife’s attempt to garnish other funds. Wife appeals, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in construing the $50,000 provision in the dissolution judgment. On that point, we agree with wife. Therefore, we reverse and remand.
The relevant facts, on which the decision turned, are undisputed. Husband and wife were married 11 years. They did not have children. The parties separated in 2008, and husband initiated dissolution proceedings that same year. Wife was unrepresented. The parties agreed on the terms of a stipulated judgment that was drafted by husband’s counsel. Among the preliminary provisions, the judgment recites, "Husband and Wife acknowledge that the disposition of their property, whether or not equal, is just and proper considering all circumstances."
The operative provisions of the judgment were divided into titled sections. The section titled "Spousal Support" provided wife support of $1,000 per month for 32 months. The section titled "Personal Property Division" distributed three businesses to husband and distributed other accounts and personal property to one or the other spouse. A section titled "Real Property" distributed to wife one property with a residence, while requiring husband to pay its mortgage. The judgment distributed to husband four properties, including the "Elk Haven" property, which had been the marital residence.
Following those sections, the judgment included, among others, sections titled "Property Settlement," "Debt Allocation," and "Taxes."
The parties’ dispute centers on one of those separate sections, "Property Settlement," which follows the distribution of personal and real property. In its entirety, it provides:
As a consequence of that provision, the dissolution judgment contains a summary titled "Money Award" that restates the terms in the "Property Settlement" provision. The "Money Award Amount" specifies that "[h]usband shall pay to Wife $50,000 upon the sale of 141860 Elk Haven Way, Crescent Lake, Oregon." After the parties signed the stipulated judgment, the court approved and entered judgment on November 26, 2008.
About six months later, husband defaulted on the debt on the Elk Haven property, and, in March 2014, a lender obtained a judgment of judicial foreclosure of the trust deed. In May 2014, the court issued a writ of execution to the sheriff to sell the property, and, in July 2014, the lender bid its debt to purchase the property in the sheriff’s sale.
In March 2015, wife issued a writ of garnishment directed against funds held by husband’s attorneys in order to collect the $50,000 sum described by the dissolution judgment. Husband challenged the garnishment. He argued that his obligation to pay $50,000 was entirely conditioned upon the sale of the Elk Haven property, which the parties assumed, at the time, would raise significant funds. He argued that his obligation was relieved because the foreclosure did not qualify as a "sale." Seeking various forms of relief, husband urged the court to deny the garnishment, declare the judgment debt satisfied, and set aside the "Property Settlement" provision in the dissolution judgment. Wife argued that the "Property Settlement" provision required that husband pay her $50,000 as an equalizing judgment, payable upon the "sale" of the Elk Haven property. She argued that the foreclosure sale qualified as a "sale" and triggered husband’s obligation to pay.
After a hearing, the trial court issued a letter opinion that identified as dispositive the interpretation of the disputed provision in the dissolution judgment. The court indicated that, ordinarily, it would take testimony and receive other extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent, but that counsel had assured the court at its hearing that no such evidence existed. Looking to the terms of the judgment itself, the court noted that there were no details directing the timing or method of sale of the property or describing the effect of no sale or a foreclosure. In the court’s view, the lack of such details supported husband’s contention that his obligation was entirely contingent on his sale of the property and at a profit. The court added that, if the parties had intended the $50,000 obligation to be an equalizing judgment, wife would have sooner sought payment. The court determined that the dissolution judgment should be construed to provide that husband would pay $50,000 only if he had been able to sell the Elk Haven property himself at a profit. The court concluded that the foreclosure was not a "sale" within the meaning of the judgment. The court entered a supplemental judgment granting husband’s challenge to the writ of garnishment, declaring that funds held by husband’s attorneys were not garnishable, and granting husband’s claim of exemption. The supplemental judgment declared that the underlying $50,000 obligation was conditioned on the sale of the Elk Haven property, that no sale occurred, and that husband was relieved of that obligation. The supplemental judgment declared that the "Property Settlement" provision of the dissolution judgment was vacated, set aside, of no further force and effect, and deemed satisfied. Finally, the supplemental judgment declared that the lien, effected by the dissolution judgment, was discharged and the money award deemed satisfied.
Wife appeals from the supplemental judgment, challenging the trial court’s interpretation of the dissolution judgment. She reiterates that the dissolution judgment is an equalizing judgment, and that the "Property Settlement" provision requires husband to pay her $50,000 upon the sale of the Elk Haven property, no matter who sells the property or whether any profits result from the sale. At least for purposes of that judgment, she contends that there is no difference between a sheriff’s sale and an ordinary sale.
Husband argues that the dissolution judgment does not contain an equalizing judgment and instead contains a provision for payment of $50,000 to wife only in the event that husband sold the marital residence at some profit. At oral argument, husband conceded that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial