Wulf v. Wulf, 36,303

Parties are ex-spouses; an amended Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) required Petitioner (ex-husband) to pay Respondent $87,500 at closing when Petitioner sold 1908 Carolina Way.
The district court approved and adopted the amended MSA by stipulated order; the MSA did not specify a time for sale or payment.
Respondent performed her obligations; Petitioner removed the house from the market and did not re-list it for nearly four years.
Respondent moved for an order to show cause; the district court read a requirement of sale "within a reasonable time" into the MSA, found Petitioner in contempt, and awarded $87,000 plus fees and interest.
Petitioner appealed, arguing the court unlawfully modified the MSA by implying a deadline (requiring Rule 1-060 relief) and that contempt was improper because the implied term was unforeseen.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm, considered Petitioner’s opposition, and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wulf)	Defendant's Argument (Reinecke Wulf)	Held
Whether the court improperly "modified" the adopted MSA by implying a requirement to sell within a reasonable time	District court converted the adopted MSA into a court order modification without Rule 1-060 authority; merger made the MSA an order that cannot be altered except by formal relief	The court merely enforced the judgment by implying a reasonable time where the contract was silent to effect the parties' intent	Court held it was enforcement, not an improper modification; implying a reasonable time was proper to fill contractual silence and effectuate the MSA
Whether holding Petitioner in contempt was improper because he lacked notice of an implied deadline	Petitioner contends he could not be held in contempt for failing to meet an implied term he did not know existed	Respondent argues courts may imply a reasonable performance term; removing the house and withholding payment for ~4 years breached the court-enforced obligation	Court held contempt was proper: implication of a reasonable time is recognized law, and the evidence supported that nearly four years was unreasonable

Ottino v. Ottino, 130 N.M. 168, 21 P.3d 37 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses merger of MSAs into divorce decrees, limits of merger, and purpose to enable contempt enforcement)
Cortez v. Cortez, 145 N.M. 642, 203 P.3d 857 (N.M. 2009) (applies contract principles and equitable interpretation to an MSA merged into a decree)
ConocoPhillips Co. v. Lyons, 299 P.3d 844 (N.M. 2013) (when contract is silent, law may imply a reasonable term)
Castle v. McKnight, 116 N.M. 595, 866 P.2d 323 (N.M. 1993) (reasonableness in performance will be implied when it effectuates parties' intent and no contrary expression exists)
Hall v. Hall, 114 N.M. 378, 838 P.2d 995 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (distinguishes enforcement from improper modification of a divorce decree; Rule 1-060 required for true modifications)
Hadrych v. Hadrych, 140 N.M. 829, 149 P.3d 593 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (court may enforce a decree to protect parties' reasonable expectations and prevent unilateral acts that defeat awards)