Marriage of Orr
2017 MT 291
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Daniel and Melinda Orr executed a Marital and Property Settlement Agreement (May 16, 2014) incorporated into a Decree of Legal Separation; the decree found the agreement reasonable and equitable.
- Agreement: if matter remained separation Melinda got 30% business distributions and no maintenance; if converted to dissolution Melinda relinquished business interest and Daniel would pay $3,000/month maintenance for 3.5 years.
- Agreement contained an "Entire Agreement" clause stating it "may not be amended or modified except by an agreement in writing" (non‑modification language underlined in the original).
- District Court converted the separation to a dissolution (Nov. 19, 2014), triggering Melinda’s relinquishment and Daniel’s maintenance obligation; Daniel paid six months then sought modification after his income dropped.
- Standing Master reduced maintenance to $500/month for 24 months and ordered sale of an asset; Melinda objected; District Court held the agreement precluded judicial modification and reversed the Standing Master.
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the maintenance was an inseverable part of the property settlement and not judicially modifiable under the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Orr's Argument | Koffler's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may modify maintenance incorporated from the parties' agreement despite a non‑modification clause | Non‑modification language is merely an integration/merger clause preventing extrinsic evidence, not a bar to judicial modification for changed circumstances | The plain non‑modification language bars judicial modification; maintenance here was exchanged for relinquished property so inseverable | Held: Maintenance is inseverable from the property division and not modifiable because parties bargained to exchange Melinda’s business interest for maintenance; enforcement not unconscionable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Bolstad, 203 Mont. 131, 660 P.2d 95 (Mont. 1983) (where separation agreement expressly precludes modification, court may not later modify maintenance)
- Rowen v. Rowen, 199 Mont. 315, 649 P.2d 1259 (Mont. 1982) (if agreement does not limit modification, court may modify maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Johnson, 252 Mont. 258, 828 P.2d 388 (Mont. 1992) (judicial modification precluded by agreement language specifically preventing court modification)
- In re Marriage of Pearson, 291 Mont. 101, 965 P.2d 268 (Mont. 1998) (general non‑modification clause can preclude court modification)
- In re Marriage of Robertson, 237 Mont. 406, 773 P.2d 1213 (Mont. 1989) (maintenance accepted in exchange for relinquished property is inseverable and not subject to modification)
- In re Marriage of Thompson, 640 P.2d 279 (Colo. App. 1982) (parties may bargain to preclude modification; waiver to seek modification can be consideration for property concessions)