Roseth v. Roseth
829 N.W.2d 136
S.D.2013Background
- Divorce agreement required pro-rata payment of children’s higher-education expenses under Paragraph 19.
- Jason Roseth pursued extended study: fifth year undergrad and first year of graduate school in music performance with accounting major added.
- Calvin paid until May 2011; Michele informed of fifth year and graduate plan in May 2011.
- Circuit court found Paragraph 19 unambiguous and required continued payment including fifth year and graduate work.
- Appellant Calvin argued payments should end after May 2011; respondent Michele argued broader scope including graduate studies; appellate court held ambiguity and admitted parol evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Paragraph 19 ambiguous regarding scope of course of study | Michele: course includes graduate school | Calvin: course limited to single undergraduate major | Ambiguous; parol evidence admissible. |
| Does course of study include graduate school and multiple majors | Course includes graduate work and multiple majors | Course limited to undergraduate degree | Ambiguous; parol evidence admissible. |
| Should parol evidence be used to interpret Paragraph 19 | Parol evidence clarifies meaning | Parol evidence cannot vary written terms | Parol evidence admissible to explain meaning. |
| Are credits from summer 2011 and subsequent terms part of course of study | Yes, within course of study | No, beyond original undergrad scope | Yes; these credits were part of course of study. |
| Does inclusion of accounting major affect obligation to pay | Accounting major encompassed in course of study | Not clear; limited to music major | Included; accounting credits part of course of study. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duran v. Duran, 657 N.W.2d 692 (S.D. 2003) (contract interpretations in divorce are governed by contract law; de novo review)
- Pesika v. Pesika, 618 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2000) (ambiguous contracts; parol evidence admissible to explain instrument)
- Pankratz v. Hoff, 806 N.W.2d 231 (S.D. 2011) (contract interpretation; ambiguity; de novo review)
- Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. Cicmanec, 709 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2006) (ambiguity and contract construction; parol evidence rules)
- All Star Constr. v. Koehn, 741 N.W.2d 736 (S.D. 2007) (contract interpretation—ambiguity governs rules of construction)
- LaMore Rest. Grp., LLC v. Akers, 748 N.W.2d 756 (S.D. 2008) (ambiguous terms; parol evidence allowed to explain meaning)
- Jensen v. Pure Plant Food Int’l Ltd., 274 N.W.2d 261 (S.D. 1979) (parol evidence principles in contract interpretation)
- Arrowhead Ridge I, LLC v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., 800 N.W.2d 730 (S.D. 2011) (parol evidence admissible to explain instrument when ambiguous)
- Brookings Mall, Inc. v. Captain Ahab’s, Ltd., 300 N.W.2d 259 (S.D. 1980) (parol evidence to vary or add terms not allowed; used to explain)
- Vander Heide v. Boke Ranch, Inc., 736 N.W.2d 824 (S.D. 2007) (contract interpretation and ambiguity standards)
- Malcolm v. Malcolm, 365 N.W.2d 863 (S.D. 1985) (baseline contract interpretation guidance)
- Alverson v. Nw. Nat’l. Cas. Co., 559 N.W.2d 234 (S.D. 1997) (ambiguity and contract construction)
- Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home v. Cicmanec, 709 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2006) (Ambiguity and parol evidence rules)