829 N.W.2d 136
S.D.2013Background
- Calvin and Michele Roseth divorced in 1997; their Stipulation and Agreement required pro rata payment of college expenses under Paragraph 19.
- Paragraph 19 requires payment until completion of the course of study or age 25, whichever occurs first, with pro rata shares based on child-support calculations.
- Jason Roseth, the youngest child, pursued a fifth year of undergraduate study and then a two-year master’s program in music; he added an accounting major.
- Calvin paid his pro rata share through spring 2011; after May 2011 he disputed ongoing payments as to fifth year and graduate school.
- Michele contends Paragraph 19 covers graduate school and multiple majors; Calvin contends it covers only a single undergraduate degree.
- The circuit court held Paragraph 19 ambiguous, admitted parol evidence, and ultimately required Calvin to pay for the summer 2011, fall 2011, spring 2012 terms, and the first year of graduate school.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Paragraph 19 define 'course of study' ambiguously? | Michele argues 'course of study' includes graduate school and multiple majors. | Calvin argues it covers only a single undergraduate degree and not graduate school. | Yes, ambiguous; parol evidence admissible. |
| Are the 2011 summer session, fall 2011, and spring 2012 credits part of the 'course of study'? | These credits are part of Jason’s extended course in music performance and related majors. | These credits were not part of the original undergraduate scope. | Yes, included. |
| Does parol evidence restrict or expand the interpretation of Paragraph 19? | Parol evidence supports including graduate school and multiple majors. | Parol evidence cannot alter the written agreement beyond its plain terms. | Parol evidence admissible to explain meaning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duran v. Duran, 2003 S.D. 15, 657 N.W.2d 692 (S.D. 2003) (contract interpretation standard in divorce matters)
- Pesika v. Pesika, 2000 S.D. 137, 618 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2000) (ambiguity and parol evidence framework)
- Pankratz v. Hoff, 2011 S.D. 69, 806 N.W.2d 231 (S.D. 2011) (contract interpretation and de novo review)
- Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. Cicmanec, 2006 S.D. 6, 709 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2006) (ambiguous contract interpretation; parol evidence rules)
- All Star Constr. v. Koehn, 2007 S.D. 111, 741 N.W.2d 736 (S.D. 2007) (contract construction principles and intent of parties)
- LaMore Rest. Grp., LLC v. Akers, 2008 S.D. 32, 748 N.W.2d 756 (S.D. 2008) (ambiguity and use of extrinsic evidence)