Bayne v. Bayne
302 Neb. 858
Neb.2019Background
- Mick and Brittney Bayne divorced by consent decree on December 9, 2015; decree awarded the marital home to Brittney subject to a refinancing contingency.
- Decree required Brittney to "have the home refinanced into her own name within 12 months," made that requirement enforceable by contempt, and provided that if she was "unable" to refinance within 12 months the house would be listed for sale and net proceeds divided equally.
- Brittney applied to refinance and obtained lender approval within 12 months but the bank scheduled closing about 13 months after the decree; she closed the refinance on January 13, 2017.
- Brittney repaired and improved the house post-divorce, paid mortgage and closing costs, and later sold the house in June 2017 for $194,000, receiving roughly $45,000 net.
- Mick sued by declaratory judgment seeking one-half of the sale proceeds under the forced-sale clause; the district court held Brittney was "able" to refinance within 12 months and therefore the forced-sale clause did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forced-sale clause was triggered because refinancing was not completed within 12 months | Bayne (plaintiff) argued the phrase "within 12 months" requires completion of closing within 12 months, so failure to close triggers sale and equal division | Bayne (defendant) argued she obtained lender approval within 12 months, was "able" to refinance, and closing delay was bank-controlled and not willful | Court held the clause applies only if Brittney was "unable" to refinance within 12 months; approval within 12 months showed she was able, so forced-sale clause did not apply |
| Whether the court improperly considered extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the decree | Bayne argued the decree is unambiguous and must be interpreted solely from its text | Bayne argued the district court relied on extrinsic testimony | Court held it interprets the decree as a matter of law from its contents and found no reversible reliance on extrinsic evidence; even if considered, appellate review proceeds de novo |
| Whether contempt could have been used to compel refinancing | Bayne contended sale should be required regardless of contempt remedy | Bayne noted contempt provision but sought sale remedy | Court held contempt is an available remedy where there is willful refusal to refinance; forced sale is for situations where party is unable to refinance, not for noncompletion driven by lender scheduling |
| Whether an equitable construction favors forcing sale despite textual reading | Bayne argued textual requirement would be meaningless unless closing completion within 12 months triggered sale | Court found equitable principles support a reasonable construction that tolerates reasonable delays beyond closing date when party made good-faith efforts and was able to refinance within 12 months |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Webb, 287 Neb. 712, 844 N.W.2d 290 (court interprets final dissolution decrees from the four corners)
- Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526, 909 N.W.2d 351 (settlement incorporated in decree interpreted as part of the judgment)
- Kerndt v. Ronan, 236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466 (final judgments bind parties to the original language used)
- McCullough v. McCullough, 299 Neb. 719, 910 N.W.2d 515 (contempt and equitable remedies in family law context)
- Mihalyak v. Mihalyak, 11 Conn. App. 610, 529 A.2d 213 (delays in refinancing often tolerated when reasonable and outside party's control)