Leighton v. Leighton
| Decision Date | 06 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-331,81-331 |
| Citation | 449 A.2d 1213,122 N.H. 721 |
| Parties | Barbara S. LEIGHTON v. Frederick L. LEIGHTON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Law Offices of James J. Kalled, Ossipee (Robert G. Whaland, Manchester, on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.
Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern, P. A., Portsmouth (Robert A. Shaines, Portsmouth, by brief and Gregory Robbins, Portsmouth, orally), for defendant.
The defendant, Frederick L. Leighton, appeals from a superior court order requiring that he pay the 1979 federal income taxes of the plaintiff, Barbara S. Leighton, pursuant to an oral agreement by the parties to file a joint return for 1979. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In January 1980, a Master (Fred W. Hall, Jr., Esq.) held a final hearing in the parties' divorce proceeding. At the hearing, the defendant's attorney approached the plaintiff and her attorney. In the presence of the master, but off the record, the defendant's attorney asked the plaintiff to agree to file a joint federal income tax return for the year 1979. The plaintiff agreed.
After the income tax filing deadline, however, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he had filed separately. The plaintiff had not filed any tax return. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court, seeking enforcement of the parties' oral agreement regarding their tax returns, and an order requiring the defendant to pay all of the plaintiff's 1979 taxes and her penalty for late payment and filing.
After a hearing, the master concluded that, although the defendant himself had not been present during the conversation concerning the agreement, the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement regarding a joint filing of their tax returns. The master recommended that the defendant be ordered to pay all the taxes and penalties assessed against the plaintiff. The Superior Court (Wyman, J.) approved the master's recommendation, and the defendant appealed.
The defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement. Even assuming that the defendant properly preserved this issue for appeal, we cannot find any merit to his argument. At the hearing on the plaintiff's motion, both the plaintiff and her attorney testified that the defendant's counsel asked the plaintiff to file a joint return, and that the plaintiff agreed. Additionally, the master who presided at the hearing was present during the conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant's counsel when the agreement to file jointly was made. Cf. State v. Torres, 121 N.H. 828, 830-31, 435 A.2d 527, 528 (1981). On the basis of the testimony, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that an agreement had been reached. Town of Harrisville v. Clooney, 122 N.H. 586, 448 A.2d 381 (1982); see Salem Engineering and Construction Corporation v. Londonderry School District, 122 N.H. 379, 445 A.2d 1091 (1982).
Although the defendant himself was not involved in the conversation which led to the parties' agreement to file a joint return, the defendant's attorney did participate. As his representative, the defendant's attorney made an agreement which was binding on the defendant. See Manchester Housing Auth. v. Zyla, 118 N.H. 268, 269, 385 A.2d 225, 226 (1978); see also Bower v. Davis & Symonds Lumber Co., 119 N.H. 605, 608, 406 A.2d 119, 121-22 (1979).
The defendant next contends that Rule 150 of the Superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mortner v. Thompson
...that such agreements are binding upon the parties. See Bossi v. Bossi, 131 N.H. 262, 265, 551 A.2d 978 (1988) ; Leighton v. Leighton, 122 N.H. 721, 723, 449 A.2d 1213 (1982). Yet, it must be recognized that, although parties in a divorce proceeding are free to negotiate and bind themselves ......
-
Cottone v. Cottone
...694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982); Levin v. Shapiro By Levin, 309 Pa.Super. 223, 455 A.2d 130 (1983) or Leighton v. Leighton, 122 N.H. 721, 449 A.2d 1213 (1982), applicable to the question before me. Where a court has in personam jurisdiction over a respondent it is obviously desir......
-
Bossi v. Bossi, 88-102
...that oral agreements between attorneys are binding" in actions for divorce as well as in other civil actions. Leighton v. Leighton, 122 N.H. 721, 723, 449 A.2d 1213, 1215 (1982). In the present case the plaintiff stipulated that his counsel had the authority to enter into the settlement. In......