*1 JENSEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, Roberta Jean JENSEN,
Craig Verner Defendant- Appellant.
Supreme of Idaho. Court 13, McClendon, Higer, Higer H. &
Emmett, defendant-appellant. for Dworshak, Boise, plain- Calvin G. tiff-respondent.
PER CURIAM. entered April
On di- contemplation into a contract vorce, to settle sup- division, alimony and respon- was drafted port. The contract by the dent’s then legal advice. appellant without col- pay all agreed: Therein *2 19-year- and in lege expenses parties the then vide his own efforts no event $1,000 son; per year; pay respondent old of his more than academic what 37.4% support gross past spousal but in event than was held to be due income less month; per per life and was maintain reduced from $350.00 $350.00 $200.00 respon- month; spousal medical benefit of re support insurance the future was appellant’s earnings. dent and their son. It was recited therein duced to 15% parties inexplicably that in the event of a divorce “the Also and agree- shall be bound of this appellant’s terms awarded 20% agreement ment” the should not be monthly federal take retirement benefits to merged appellant might into the divorce The re decree. effect at such time as purported further to recite all tire. The contract did1 not set the the acquired benefits as any forth retirement parties during marriage divide pay and to property appellant agreed had nor the same. portion retirement respondent any of said benefits. respondent-wife
Thereafter instituted an action seeking complaint a divorce. Her appellant as- resulted sought only attorney’s fees, a divorce and signs as modifica- error each of the court’s incoprorated but part complaint of her Although tions the the above contract. the par- above-mentioned contract of the any simply are stated and are not facts 8, 1973, ties. following On March default res- dispute, their treatment and substantial by appellant-husband, a decree of divorce presents olution convolut- appellant was entered. The performed ac- impos- legal problems ed which are almost cording to the terms the until disentanglement. sible of Respondent brought thereafter June begin analysis instant suit to enforce the with the contract We our appellant seeking proceed counterclaimed clear rule law that in a default nullification of the may granted or modifica- excess no relief tion of divorce prayed complaint. decree. for in I.R.C.P. rule for such 54(c). deem the rationale Following hearing, the district court The to be as to need no discussion. so clear made findings, conclusions and entered plaintiff-respondent original complaint of judgment purporting con simply seeking herein recites tract of the and enforce the same alleges one child marriage parties, of the ap modified. The court found that the marriage was then but he was born of pellant had knowledge of the technicali alleges that past majority, age separation agreements nor limi parties had been property and debts of the tations on modifications thereof and that alleges them and divided between equitably appellant while thought was only attorney’s fees. working protect interests, parties’ both prayer of the com judgment sought in the in fact the attorney only worked for re mar plaint by way dissolution of spondent. Appellant was not advised to attorney’s fees. riage and for obtain legal counsel before the hearing held usual, the default executed. The district As is brief. upon plaintiff’s provisions bearing unconscionable, were aside from oppressive only testimony and unfair. The division residence, court therefore modified the on the contract had of the the fact following particulars property, real irrec- there were required appellant and that separated to conform thereto: been them required differences pay college oncilable con- marriage to expenses for for the parties, impossible the son of made it but hearing a Following that default pro to the extent the son could not tinue. reciting and decree was entered er wife curtailed allegations proven employment. Rather the above had been former wife to obtain obviously, and that theo- and debts of the those doctrines and those inapplicable ties had here in the equitably divided. Plaintiff context granted attor- contract. a divorce awarded suit for enforcement *3 ney’s appeal attempt amalgamate to and theo- fees. No was taken from that doctrines judgment. refor- relating to modification or the- with doctrines and mation of contracts important is juncture It at this to of decrees of relating ories to modification point pray did out that the not error. require payment for nor the decree Ldid Hence, alimony we support. findings or child par and contract entered into conclude hold that this action insofar sup it to enforced here alimony sought relates hereto and be to and/or unjust oppressive, port inequitable in cannot in be viewed the context of Hence, appeal attempt supported the evidence. from or an to a decree portions of the lower court judgment and those decree of divorce. defendant-appellant require to turn then to insurance, to life and health to maintain parties upon respondent’s which action provide college for the child education Following trial, is based. require in effect that retire and after the alimony both before overreaching result and further are re defendant-appellant ment of the it “oppressive found and unfair that was versed. sufficiently be void unless modified * herein, appeal * * was taken As indicated the court. Thus without Nev- of divorce. from the decree permanent reason the in husband would be ertheless, af- purports as it that decree totally in a unreal and bondage to the wife prop- community already firm the divided unjust situation.” therefrom No upon an erty based parties was and a review taken be here held to agreement which has itself and the evidence The decision void and unenforceable. support for adequate submitted indicates family indicates that the lower court finding by such the trial court. there- proceeds sold and the home has been contained no mention are in- deposited the court. We with any community property in the interest proceeds argument in formed hence, program and defendant’s retirement to the been distributed that sale have provision distribution that asset touches error assignment of ties. No to the wife therein. Never- was contained it is asset division of that theless, reformation its Hence, error. not that such was argued attempt plaintiff-respondent cer- decreed of that that division defendant-appellant’s rights tain retire- disturbed. asset will not be ment program benefits and further ordered al- No is costs judgment reversed. de- survive the should fendant-appellant his lowed. binding be
heirs. : specially) BAKES, (concurring Justice
The trial findings court made ob viously based has reversed the applicable on doctrines The Court the contract modified alimony provisions modification in di trial court which finding trial court’s findings vorce and has affirmed the decrees. Those sup defendant-appellant the contract between port family because not his but his form- void unenforceable new 925 overreaching. appears to wife’s be amalgamation
reasonable of this Court’s Sande, decisions 83 Idaho Sande permitted (1961), to void a wife marital contract for over- fraud,
reaching where there was no Suter,
Suter v.
(1976), spouses which demands that equally.
treated The effect of such a
judgment, me, it seems leave these ante; quo
divorced in status *4 support rights and obligations settled,
are not valid contract or court decree. If the are unable renegotiate regard- a settlement contract voided today, our decision fur- proceedings
ther necessary order equitable make distribution of their
property and a of any sup- determination
port rights obligations authorized 32-706, -712,
I.C. and the deci- §§
sions of this Court. al., PALMER A. et Plaintiffs- Respondents,
Jerry D. FITZPATRICK Charlene M. wife, Fitzpatrick, his Defend ants-Appellants.
Supreme Court of Idaho.