Thomas v. Goff

• Decision Date: 20 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 12372,12372
• Citation: 100 Idaho 282,596 P.2d 794
• Parties: Daisy Janet THOMAS a/k/a Daisy Janet Goff, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ray W. GOFF, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 794

596 P.2d 794

100 Idaho 282

Daisy Janet THOMAS a/k/a Daisy Janet Goff, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ray W. GOFF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12372.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 20, 1979.

Roger D. Ling of Ling & Nielsen, Rupert, for defendant-appellant.

Ronald Jarman, Kenneth E. Lyon, Jr., Pocatello, for plaintiff-respondent.

McFADDEN, Justice.

This appeal involves a long standing dispute between Daisy Janet Thomas (also known as Daisy Janet Goff), the plaintiff-respondent, and her former husband Ray W. Goff, defendant-appellant. These parties were married June 1, 1947, to which marriage four children were born. Their eldest daughter was killed in an automobile accident in January, 1969. During their marriage Ray W. Goff, a World War II veteran, applied for and drew under the United States Homestead drawing the right to homestead a tract of some 141.9 acres of land lying in Minidoka County. The homestead entry was apparently made pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 279, a section of the federal homestead laws giving preference to World War II and Korean conflict veterans. The parties resided on this property for a time, but did not obtain a patent to the property from the Federal Government.

After differences arose between the parties, Daisy Janet Thomas (Goff) obtained a decree of divorce from her husband on January 5, 1963. In this decree the respondent mother was awarded custody of the minor children, subject to visitation rights by the appellant father, who was obligated to pay support for the minor children. The trial court also divided the parties' personal property and held that the 141.9 acre homestead entry was acquired as community property. To satisfy each party's community interest in the real property, the trial court awarded the homestead property to appellant and ordered him to execute a promissory note payable to the wife in the amount of $14,500 with three per cent interest, payable in annual installments. The installments were due on March 15, 1963 and yearly thereafter. The first three annual installments were for $1,000 each, and the later installments were to be $2,000 up to and including March 15, 1970, with the balance of principal and interest to be paid on March 15, 1971.

In the divorce decree the trial court ordered appellant to execute a real estate mortgage on the homestead property to secure the note. In the event that the defendant Ray W. Goff failed to execute the note and mortgage, upon showing, the court would appoint someone to execute these instruments on his behalf. Goff did not execute the note and mortgage, and instead, they were executed on his behalf by the court clerk pursuant to court order.

Appellant failed to comply with the terms of the promissory note and in 1964 Daisy Janet Thomas (Goff) instituted another action against Ray W. Goff on the promissory note and to foreclose the mortgage. The record fails to disclose any further proceedings in this foreclosure action, or whether the complaint was ever served on Ray Goff.

In February, 1973, Daisy Janet Thomas (Goff), respondent herein, instituted the instant action. Her first complaint sought a judgment for past due child support, attorney fees and foreclosure of the note and mortgage. She filed an amended complaint in July 1974, wherein she sought a judgment for past due child support payments, modification of the original divorce decree, and a money judgment against the defendant for the amount of the promissory note and mortgage with interest. She also asked that she be allowed to patent the land which the court found to be community property, that she be allowed to assert the balance due on the promissory note with interest and attorney fees as liens against the land and that it be sold to satisfy the debt, or that the court grant some equitable means whereby the original divorce decree could be enforced.

In her amended complaint respondent alleged that appellant Goff had never paid (except for one small payment) the promissory note provided in the divorce decree, but that the original note and mortgage have never been enforceable. She claimed that this note and mortgage were unenforceable because the land was acquired under the Desert Entry Lands Act of the Federal Government, that the land has never been patented, and although the defendant filed for bankruptcy and the Trustee attempted to force him to patent the land it was not accomplished.

Appellant answered the amended complaint generally denying its allegations, and as affirmative defenses pertinent to this appeal pleaded that respondent's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, i. e. I.C. § 5-215(1), ¹ inasmuch as more than six years had elapsed since entry of the original decree of divorce and division of the property; that respondent had filed her claim against him in his bankruptcy proceedings and that all claims by her against the homestead property were barred by the bankruptcy proceedings; that appellant and respondent had entered into an agreement sometime near April 1970, under which respondent waived future child support payments in consideration of his waiver of future visitation rights with a daughter, and that he fulfilled his part of this bargain.

The trial court, after presentation of the evidence, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a decree wherein the court held that Daisy Janet Thomas's claim to her interest in the real property was not barred by the provisions of I.C. § 5-215; that the homestead property is jointly owned as a tenancy in common with an equal interest in both parties; and that Daisy Janet Thomas should execute a deed to Ray W. Goff upon payment by him to her of the sum of $14,500 with interest from January 5, 1963 at 6% per annum, with the payment to be made upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The trial court also awarded Daisy Janet Thomas the sum of $525 as past due child support.

After appealing from this judgment, appellant moved to augment the record with two items: a copy of the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order in his petition in bankruptcy; and a copy of the complaint filed against him in the district court for Minidoka County by respondent on April 17, 1964, seeking judgment on the note and foreclosure of the mortgage ordered entered in the original divorce action. Appellant's motion to augment is denied for two reasons: first, the record on this appeal does not disclose that the requested instruments in the bankruptcy proceedings were ever brought before or considered by the trial court; and secondly, a copy of the complaint filed by respondent against appellant on April 17, 1964 is already a part of this record. On this appeal, appellant asserts that no lien or financial obligation can attach to the homestead property inasmuch as federal law has preempted this area; that the statute of limitations has run on the $14,500 note executed pursuant to the original divorce decree; and that he entered into a novation with respondent, by which respondent released him from his obligations under the decree of divorce. He also contends that since no appeal was taken from the decree of divorce entered in 1963, the trial court had no authority to reform the original decree of divorce with regards to his obligation on the note which was purportedly secured by a mortgage on the homestead entry. Appellant does not, however, question the propriety of the judgment entered against him for $525 past due child support.

With regards to the authority of the district court to modify the terms of the original decree of divorce, we agree with appellant. It is well settled in Idaho that courts do not have jurisdiction to modify the property provisions of a divorce decree after the decree becomes final, absent fraud or coercion. Paul v. Paul, 97 Idaho 889, 556 P.2d 365 (1976); Lowe v. Lowe, 92 Idaho 208, 440 P.2d 141 (1968); 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 300(4). Respondent did not initiate this action until long after the time for appealing the original decree of divorce had expired....