Leonard v. Leonard

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MILLER
Citation529 N.W.2d 208
PartiesShari LEONARD, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lyle LEONARD, Defendant and Appellant. No. # 18775. . Considered on Briefs
Decision Date11 January 1995

Page 208

529 N.W.2d 208
Shari LEONARD, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Lyle LEONARD, Defendant and Appellant.
No. # 18775.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Jan. 11, 1995.
Decided March 29, 1995.

John E. Burke, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellee.

Karen L. Crew of Crew and Crew, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Lyle Leonard (Lyle) appeals a trial court order awarding his former wife, Shari Leonard (Shari), a one-half interest in the parties' marital home. We reverse.

FACTS

The parties were divorced with the entry of a divorce decree on July 25, 1988. The divorce decree incorporated a stipulation and agreement between the parties dividing the marital assets. That agreement contained the following pertinent provisions concerning the marital home:

Page 209

8. [Shari] and [Lyle] are presently owners of a house and lot located at 2105 East Madison, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [Shari] and [Lyle] agree that [Shari] shall be entitled to the exclusive possession of the house to live in until the children have graduated from high school or until [Shari] remarries, whichever comes first. [Shari] agrees to make all payments and repairs which come due during this period and to hold [Lyle] harmless therefrom.

9. Ownership of [the] home reverts to [Lyle] after graduation of youngest child from high school[.]

On November 23, 1993, Shari filed a motion for a show cause order seeking to rescind the provision of the divorce stipulation requiring reversion of ownership of the marital home to Lyle. In addition, Shari sought an order directing that the parties should share equally in the proceeds from any sale of the home. Along with her motion, Shari filed an affidavit averring that the only reason she agreed to sign over her interest in the home was to obtain Lyle's agreement to end an ongoing pattern of harassment and intimidation he had directed at her since her commencement of the divorce proceedings. Shari further averred that, contrary to his agreement, Lyle had continued harassing her throughout the time leading up to her filing of the show cause motion.

In response to the show cause motion, Lyle raised the rule prohibiting modification of property settlements and laches as defenses. Shari countered with another affidavit in which she averred that, in July 1990, she had entered into an oral agreement with Lyle that she would receive one-half of the proceeds from any sale of the marital home if she continued living in the house and paying for the repairs. As proof of that agreement, Shari provided a copy of a check for $250 that she had written to pay Lyle for her share of the costs of reshingling the residence. In his counter-affidavit, Lyle averred he had never agreed to forego his claim to the proceeds from any sale of the home and that no such agreement was ever discussed between the parties.

A show cause hearing was conducted and the trial court subsequently entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order. The trial court found: that the parties' stipulation for reversion of ownership of the marital home to Lyle was entered into on the basis of Lyle's agreement to curtail his harassment of Shari; that, contrary to that agreement, Lyle had continued harassing Shari after entry of the divorce decree; that the parties agreed in July 1990, that if Shari continued living in the marital home and taking care of the children and making repairs on the home, Lyle would agree to an equal division of the profits from the sale of the home; that this oral agreement constituted a novation of the parties' earlier stipulation and agreement for divorce; and, that the novation was evidenced by Shari's payment of one-half the costs of reshingling the home. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that Shari should be awarded an undivided one-half interest in the marital home and in the net proceeds from any sale of the home. Lyle appeals.

ISSUE

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY IN THE FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS MODIFIED BY A NOVATION SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES? 1

A "novation" is, "the substitution by contract of a new obligation for an existing one and is subject to the rules concerning contracts in general." SDCL 20-7-5 (emphasis added). In this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Price v. Peek, Record No. 0852-20-3
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • December 22, 2020
    ...has been incorporated into a final court order. See Humber v. Bjornson, 8 So. 3d 995, 1000-01 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ; Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208, 209-10 (S.D. 1995). Those cases recognize that novation principles may apply to typical contracts but distinguish agreements that have be......
  • Mahan v. Avera St. Luke's, No. 21118
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 10, 2001
    ...in the contract. As such, the parties to the contract are the only ones who can seek enforcement of the contract. See Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208, 211 (S.D.1995). The OSS staff doctors are currently members of the medical staff at ASL; they are a party to the contract between ASL and......
  • Houser v. Houser, s. 18961
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 23, 1995
    ...arguments and issues and consider them to be without merit and contrary to the letter and spirit of these cases: Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208 (S.D.1995); Bess v. Bess, 534 N.W.2d 346 (S.D.1995); Whalen, 490 N.W.2d 276; Vander Woude, 501 N.W.2d 361; Radigan, 465 N.W.2d 483; Vellinga v.......
  • Parsley v. Parsley, 24201.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 20, 2007
    ...it constituted no ground on which to vacate the decree of divorce as to the terms of the property division. See Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208, 210 (S.D.1995) (quoting Jeffries v. Jeffries, 434 N.W.2d 585, 588 (S.D. 1989) (acknowledging that "a divorce decree which incorporates a proper......
4 cases
  • Price v. Peek, Record No. 0852-20-3
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • December 22, 2020
    ...has been incorporated into a final court order. See Humber v. Bjornson, 8 So. 3d 995, 1000-01 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ; Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208, 209-10 (S.D. 1995). Those cases recognize that novation principles may apply to typical contracts but distinguish agreements that have be......
  • Mahan v. Avera St. Luke's, No. 21118
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 10, 2001
    ...in the contract. As such, the parties to the contract are the only ones who can seek enforcement of the contract. See Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208, 211 (S.D.1995). The OSS staff doctors are currently members of the medical staff at ASL; they are a party to the contract between ASL and......
  • Houser v. Houser, s. 18961
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 23, 1995
    ...arguments and issues and consider them to be without merit and contrary to the letter and spirit of these cases: Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208 (S.D.1995); Bess v. Bess, 534 N.W.2d 346 (S.D.1995); Whalen, 490 N.W.2d 276; Vander Woude, 501 N.W.2d 361; Radigan, 465 N.W.2d 483; Vellinga v.......
  • Parsley v. Parsley, 24201.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 20, 2007
    ...it constituted no ground on which to vacate the decree of divorce as to the terms of the property division. See Leonard v. Leonard, 529 N.W.2d 208, 210 (S.D.1995) (quoting Jeffries v. Jeffries, 434 N.W.2d 585, 588 (S.D. 1989) (acknowledging that "a divorce decree which incorporates a proper......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT