Renshaw v. Renshaw, 11620
| Decision Date | 04 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 11620,11620 |
| Citation | 96 Nev. 541,611 P.2d 1070 |
| Parties | John C. RENSHAW, Appellant, v. Diana D. RENSHAW, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, and Albert F. Pagni, Reno, for appellant.
Cooke, Roberts & Reese, and Bruce D. Roberts, Reno, for respondent.
Diana and John Renshaw were married in 1958 and had three children during their marriage. The parties divorced April 27, 1977. Pursuant to the divorce, by written agreement, custody of the children was awarded to Diana and the agreement provided that John pay alimony and child support to Diana in one fixed sum per month for specified years until March 15, 1982, when the support payments would end.
The terms of the contract did not distinguish money given for child support from that for alimony. This was admittedly done in order that John obtain certain tax benefits. See Commissioner v. Lester, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L.Ed.2d 306 (1961). The property settlement agreement further provided for payments to be decreased by fifty percent (50%) upon the death of the wife and to cease upon the death of the husband. A paragraph of the agreement recites that this was an integrated agreement and that none of the provisions pertaining to support could be modified by any court or in any manner whatsoever other than by the subsequent written agreement of the parties.
A few months after the divorce and signing of the agreement, one of the children, Leslie, who was then sixteen years old, moved in with her father. John reduced his payments to Diana by twenty-five percent (25%) on the premise that Diana had a duty to support Leslie although she was no longer living with her mother. John commenced proceedings to modify the decree for change of custody and for award of child support to which Diana responded and filed a separate action in breach of contract to recover the amount John deducted from his support payments. Ultimately the proceedings continued solely on the breach of contract action and, after trial, Diana was awarded the back payments of $1,762.50 which John had deducted for Leslie's support, and $1,000 for attorney fees. John appeals therefrom.
The property settlement agreement was neither incorporated in nor merged in the judgment and decree of the trial court. Therefore, this is clearly a breach of contract action. See Paine v. Paine, 71 Nev. 262, 287 P.2d 716 (1955).
John's contention that Diana has a legal obligation to support Leslie although she moved out of her mother's abode is without foundation.
It is clear from the document--the property settlement agreement--that the parties intended it to be a complete and integrated agreement and, thus, it is the court's responsibility to honor that intention. See Cord v. Neuhoff, 94 Nev. 21, 573 P.2d 1170 (1978). When the document is clear and unambiguous on its face, the court must construe it from the language therein. See Mohr Park Manor, Inc. v. Mohr, 83 Nev. 107, 424 P.2d 101 (1967); Club v. Investment Co., 64...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Fernandez
...the right to seek modification, were incorporated and merged into the decree. This dispositively distinguishes Renshaw v. Renshaw, 96 Nev. 541, 543, 611 P.2d 1070, 1071 (1980), which was prosecuted "solely [as a] breach of contract action" and upheld a contract term for nonmodifiable suppor......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...to enforce the agreement under contract principles. See Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 389–90, 395 P.2d 321, 322–23 (1964) ; Renshaw v. Renshaw, 96 Nev. 541, 543, 611 P.2d 1070, 1071 (1980). After merger, the district court may enforce the provisions of the divorce decree by using its contempt po......
-
Robert Dillon Framing, Inc. v. Canyon Villas Apartment Corp.
...court had a responsibility to honor the parties' intentions as plainly written, and it did so appropriately. See Renshaw v. Renshaw, 96 Nev. 541, 543, 611 P.2d 1070, 1071 (1980) (explaining that courts must honor party intentions where a contract is clear on its face).2. Economic loss doctr......
-
Canfora v. Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 41128.
...6. Id. at 265, 71 P.3d at 1261. 7. Id. 8. Ellison v. C.S.A.A., 106 Nev. 601, 603, 797 P.2d 975, 977 (1990). 9. Renshaw v. Renshaw, 96 Nev. 541, 543, 611 P.2d 1070, 1071 (1980). 10. 102 Nev. 79, 715 P.2d 1070 11. Id. at 81-82, 715 P.2d at 1071-72 (internal quotation marks omitted). 12. Id. a......