Quenzer v. Quenzer
| Decision Date | 02 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 49244,49244 |
| Citation | 578 P.2d 1144,2 Kan.App.2d 345 |
| Parties | Anita J. QUENZER, Appellee, v. Lloyd L. QUENZER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a property settlement agreement calls for one party to pay a mortgage obligation in monthly installments until satisfied, without restriction that the obligor shall be solely responsible for the payment of the principal amount, the satisfaction of the mortgage by a stranger relieves the party of any further obligation.
Kenneth Clark of Clark & Shelton, Hill City, for the appellant.
Ivan D. Krug, LaCrosse, for the appellee.
Before FOTH, C. J., and PARKS and SWINEHART, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant husband from a judgment on a post-trial motion by the plaintiff wife wherein the court found that a provision contained in a property settlement agreement was ambiguous and admitted parol testimony to prove the original intent of the parties.
The property settlement agreement as executed by the parties, who were at that time represented by attorneys, provided for the custody and support of the children born of the marriage, a division of the real and personal property accumulated during the marriage, and the payment of two mortgages that existed on the real estate (residence) that was awarded to plaintiff wife free and clear of any right, title or interest of the defendant husband. Paragraph IV of the property settlement agreement is in question, and it provided as follows:
The defendant quitclaimed his interest in the residence to the plaintiff, as the agreement required. Soon after the divorce, the plaintiff took out a second mortgage on the home. She defaulted on the second mortgage, and the second mortgagee foreclosed. The property was ultimately sold to a third party purchaser on December 3, 1975. On the same date he satisfied the first mortgage and it was released of record. On April 6, 1977, the plaintiff filed a motion in district court to construe paragraph IV in such a manner as to compel the defendant to pay her the equivalent of the monthly mortgage payments until he paid her the sum of $7,895.62, the balance of the mortgage still due and owing on the date of foreclosure.
The court found this provision of paragraph IV to be ambiguous and permitted the admission of parol testimony to explain the intent of the parties. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant was obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of said sum. Defendant now appeals, alleging:
(1) The court erred in ruling the provisions of paragraph IV of the property settlement agreement are ambiguous.
(2) The court erred in admitting parol evidence over the defendant's objection and overruling the defendant's motion for judgment.
(3) The court erred in its findings as to the intentions of the parties in construing the contract provisions.
(4) The court unlawfully modified the property settlement agreement.
An appellate court has substantially the same power to interpret documentary evidence, such as this property settlement agreement, as does the trial court. In re Estate of Broadie, 208 Kan. 621, 624, 493 P.2d 289 (1972). In this case we find that the subject provision is not in fact ambiguous as was found by the trial court.
When the agreement is reviewed in total, it is plain and clear that the parties provided, among other matters, the transfer to each other of the respective interests in their accumulated real property. This consisted of two sections of farmland and one parcel of city residential property. The farmland was to be deeded to the defendant and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quenzer v. Quenzer, 49244
...the original intent of the parties, and held for plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in Quenzer v. Quenzer, 2 Kan.App.2d 345, 578 P.2d 1144 (1978), holding the trial court erred in finding the contract was ambiguous and in admitting parol evidence. We granted a petition......