Washburn v. Washburn
| Decision Date | 08 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45445,45445 |
| Citation | 460 P.2d 503,204 Kan. 160 |
| Parties | Margaret A. WASHBURN, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Howard WASHBURN, Appellant and Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The phrase 'any balance due', as used in a settlement agreement in anticipation of a divorce, is construed and applied.
Robert L. Boyce, Jr., Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Johm H. Fields, Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee and cross-appellant.
HATCHER, Commissioner.
This appeal stems from a controversy over the meaning of the language used in a settlement agreement in anticipation of a divorce.
We are interested in but two paragraphs of the agreement as follows:
* * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
A divorce was granted to Margaret A. Washburn on her petition as of June 23, 1964. Although the settlement agreement was not incorporated in the judgment as such the same language was used.
The plaintiff remarried June 24, 1967. On February 28, 1968, plaintiff filed a motion in the district court for an order determining the exact amount of delinquent alimony and support presently due. On this motion the trial court found:
'The Court specifically rules on the contention of the defendant that the stipulation and agreement provided for the elimination of all past-due support upon the remarriage of the plaintiff and in that connection the court finds that the stipulation and agreement should be interpreted to mean that all alimony subsequent to the remarriage is forgiven.
'The Court further finds that this is the reasonable interpretation of the agreement and was the intent of the parties as to the meaning of the agreement at the time the agreement was entered into.'
The trial court found that there was as of the 8th day of March, 1968, the sum of $8,014.00 due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and that of this sum $750.00 was past-due child support and $7,264.00 was the balance of the delinquent and past-due alimony as of the date of the remarriage of the plaintiff on June 24, 1967.
The defendant has appealed. He makes but one contention here which reads:
'T...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andersen v. Corbitt, 88-176
...(1983). The mutual intent of the parties at the time of making the agreement must be ascertained and given effect. Washburn v. Washburn, 204 Kan. 160, 460 P.2d 503 (1969); Matter of Estate of Engels, 10 Kan.App.2d 103, 692 P.2d 400 (1984); Matter of Estate of Hollingsworth, 88 Wash.2d 322, ......
-
Jackson & Scherer, Inc. v. Washburn
...and child support against her former husband, Howard Washburn. The judgment was in the original sum of $8,014.00. (See Washburn v. Washburn, 204 Kan. 160, 460 P.2d 503) Both Howard and Margaret remarried and Howard was later divorced from his second wife, Dorothy Plaintiff-appellee, Jackson......
-
Washburn v. Andrew
...a prior judgment for alimony and child support in the amount of $8,014. The prior judgment was affirmed by this court in Washburn v. Washburn, 204 Kan. 160, 460 P.2d 503. A previous attempt to collect this judgment by a sale of property on execution resulted in contested litigation which ha......
-
Estate of Engels, Matter of
...of a compromise agreement involves ascertaining and then giving effect to the mutual intentions of its makers. See Washburn v. Washburn, 204 Kan. 160, 161, 460 P.2d 503 (1969). The key question to be resolved in this case is whether the parties intended the agreement to bar any attorney fee......