178 P. 173 | Mont. | 1919
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from an order allowing defendant in the divorce action instituted by Walter O. Lee against his wife, Mayme Lee, temporary alimony in the sum of $125 a month, suit money to the amount of $500, and the sum of $750 as counsel fees.
On April 5, 1918, defendant served and filed her notice of application for temporary alimony for support and maintenance during the pendency of the action, in the sum of $250 monthly; for the further sum of $1,000 as suit money to defend the action; and for $2,500 as attorney’s fees to enable her to prepare her defense, or such other sum as the court might deem just and proper. The motion was supported by the affidavit of the defendant, in which she set forth, among other things, that she was wholly without means to defend the action or to employ counsel, or to pay the costs and expenses incident to the suit, and that she has no property of any kind whatever which could be utilized by her in her defense of the action or with which to properly support herself during its pendency. She also alleged that the plaintiff was possessed of property worth in the neighborhood of $100,000, but made no mention of the separation agreement.
The application was heard upon the pleadings and certain oral and documentary evidence presented to us in a bill of exceptions.
The separation agreement provides, among other things, that plaintiff shall pay defendant the sum of. $10,000, to be evidenced by two promissory notes of $5,000! each, in addition to $100 per month from March 6 until November 1, 1917. It then concludes: “This agreement is a full and complete settlement of all property rights between the parties hereto as husband and wife, both now and after the death of either party to this agreement. From this time forward neither party shall
The plaintiff testified that his assets were of the approximate value of $102,000, and that his liabilities amounted to about $81,000. The defendant admitted the execution of the separation agreement, stating that under it she had received the sum of $100 per month as provided therein. She further admitted that she still held the two notes for $5,000 each, mentioned as part of the consideration for the agreement; that one of the notes had matured in November, 1917, and that the other would mature “this fall,” meaning thereby the fall of last year; and that they provide for interest of eight per cent per annum from date. She also testified that she had not offered to return the money she had received for her support, but that she had used it to live on. As far as the record shows, until the filing of the complaint charging her with adultery, she expressed no dissatisfaction with the provision made for her in the separation agreement; and she gives no hint of any attempt whatever on the part of the plaintiff to take undue advantage of her in its execution.
The order of the court, is sought to be impeached on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence, and is invalid in face of the separation agreement which is binding upon the parties. At the hearing below, the defendant objected to the introduction of the separation agreement “upon the ground that it was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial, and for the further reason that the contract will be in controversy in the action, and that she intended to void its terms and conditions, and that
Our statutes (secs. 3694 and 3695, Rev. Codes) clearly [1] recognize the right of husband and wife to agree in writing to immediate separation, and to make provision for support of either of them. Section 3696 declares that the mutual consent of the parties is a sufficient consideration for such agreement. It seems now to be settled beyond cavil that agreements of this character, where it appears that they are fairly made and executed, free from fraud or imposition, coercion or duress, will be upheld and enforced. (Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635, 15 Am. St. Rep. 453, 6 L. R. A. 487, 22 N. E. 1114; Parsons v. Parsons, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 223, 62 S. W. 719; Bailey v. Dillon, 186 Mass. 244, 66 L. R. A. 427, 71 N. E. 538; Winter v. Winter, 191 N. Y. 462, 16 L. R. A. (n. s.) 710, 84 N. E. 382; Walker v. Walker, 9 Wall. 743, 19 L. Ed. 814.)
The case of Galusha v. Galusha, supra, was a case much like the one now before us. In that case Justice Parker, speaking for the New York court of appeals, said: “The trial court apparently adopted the view that, inasmuch as the statute empowers the court to require the wrongdoing husband to provide for the support of the wife, it may permit the agreement to stand, and, in addition thereto, compel the defendant to pay such other or further sum as the surrounding circumstances suggest to be just. * * In view of the situation of the parties, the contract was, at the time of the execution, valid and binding upon all the parties thereto. The defendant had fully
The contract here in question is fair on its face. Defendant
Neither is there in the record any offer to restore what she has received under the provisions of the agreement; and she now stands in the position of having received and accepted benefits under a contract she is seeking to have declared null and
The court’s discretion in the premises did not go to the extent of authorizing it to arbitrarily set aside the valid agreement of the parties because, in its opinion, one of them had agreed to accept from the other less than she ought to have done.
The case of Stebbins v. Morris, 19 Mont. 115, 47 Pac. 642, decided in 1897, is commented upon by counsel for both sides, and they seem to differ with regard to the views there expressed: There a separation agreement of similar import to the one now under discussion was the subject of controversy. The husband after making the agreement, refused to comply with its terms, and the wife brought suit against him for an accounting and to compel him to pay to plaintiff the proceeds derived from the sale of the product of certain oil wells covered by the agreement. The complaint in that case set forth the agreement in full, and on the face of it it appeared that the essential requirement (which will be found in the initial paragraph of the agreement involved here) was wanting. Defendant interposed a demurrer which was sustained, and from the judgment dismissing the complaint the appeal was taken. The following excerpt from the language of Justice Buck will suffice to make clear the distinction between that case and the instant one: “No intimation is contained in the complaint that there was any necessity or moving cause for the separation other than mere caprice or purely voluntary consent. There is no allegation under which any other evidence in respect to it could be presented to the court. The demurrer was properly sustained. Had the complaint properly set forth any urgency or reasonable necessity for the agreement, then, no doubt, a cause of action would have been stated. Had it properly averred that the plaintiff had been imposed upon or defrauded by her husband in respect to this agreement, such averments would no doubt have altered the phase of the situation and entitled the plaintiff to the relief demanded. But no such allegations appear.”
Reversed and remanded.
