Warren v. Warren

• Citation: 116 Minn. 458,133 N.W. 1009
• Parties: WARREN v. WARREN.
• Decision Date: 12 January 1912
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

116 Minn. 458

133 N.W. 1009

WARREN

v.WARREN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 12, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Wm. Louis Kelly, Judge.

Action by Emma L. Warren against Edward A. Warren. From an order modifying a judgment for alimony, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

It is within the power of the court, under section 3592, R. I. 1905, subsequent to the entry of a judgment for alimony in a divorce action, to make such modifications respecting the alimony awarded as the changed conditions and circumstances of the parties may require, notwithstanding the fact that the judgment was founded upon a stipulation or agreement of the parties, entered into pending the action, fixing the award to be made in the event the court should grant the divorce.

Stipulations or agreements of that kind must be deemed to have been entered into in view of the authority conferred upon the court by the statute, and are merged in the judgment, and are not so far contracts as to be controlling upon the court, or to preclude subsequent change, in a proper case, of the original judgment.

Whether, in such a case, a modification should be made, upon the application of one of the parties, at all, and the terms and extent thereof, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

Discretion in this case held properly exercised.

Briggs, Thygeson & Everall, for appellant.

B. H. Schriber, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

[4] 1. This cause was before the court on a former appeal (114 Minn. 389, 131 N. W. 379), where the facts are fully stated. Defendant's present wife refused to join in the conveyance to plaintiff of the real property referred to in that opinion, and defendant was therefore unable to comply with the modified judgment of alimony which was there approved. Defendant then moved the court below for a further modification, resulting in the order appealed from. The present order reduced the monthly payments from $60 to $40, leaving the property rights of the parties as existing under the former judgment. A full consideration of the record leads to the conclusion that the order appealed from was within, and not beyond, the discretion of the court below, and must be affirmed.

[1][2] 2. It appears that the original judgment for alimony was based upon a stipulation of the parties, entered into pending the action, but not to facilitate the granting of the divorce, and plaintiff contends that the judgment so founded and entered became a contract between the parties, and is not subject to change by the court, except upon restoration of plaintiff to her position and rights before its entry. In this we are unable to concur. Stipulations and agreements of the kind, where not void by reason of having been entered into to facilitate a decree of divorce, become merged in the judgment when entered, and are not, in the absence of statute upon the...