TONI V. TONI 636 N.W. 2d 396 (2001) CASE BRIEF

TONI V. TONI

636 N.W. 2d 396 (2001)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Sheila Toni (W), moved to modify a spousal support award granted in a divorce decree. The decree incorporated her agreement with Conrad Toni (H) to divest the court of jurisdiction to modify spousal support. The court dismissed W's motion, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the agreement. W appealed.

FACTS: H and W were married from July 9, 1971, until May 10, 1999. The couple had three children during the marriage, and one of them was a minor at the time of the divorce. Both parties are employed in Fargo: H as a urologist, and W as a clerk at Barnes & Noble Bookstore. They entered into a 'Custody and Property Settlement Agreement' which comprehensively addressed all divorce issues. The agreement stated that, W had not been represented by counsel but that the parties had made a full disclosure and entered into the agreement of their own free will. They provided for 'joint physical custody' of the couple's minor daughter, who was expected to graduate from high school in May 1999. The agreement divided the parties' real property, stocks and retirement accounts, but did not disclose the value of those assets. The agreement also contained the following provision on spousal support: H shall pay to W the sum of $5,000 per month as and for spousal support. Said payments will continue on the first day of each month thereafter until the death of either party, W's remarriage, or until the payment due on April 1, 2002 has been made. The agreement also said the court shall be divested of jurisdiction to modify in any manner whatsoever the amount and term of the spousal support awarded to W immediately upon entry of the judgment and decree herein. The court was to retain jurisdiction to enforce H obligation to pay spousal support to W. The trial court granted the divorce and, finding the parties' agreement to be 'a fair, just and equitable settlement,' incorporated its provisions into the divorce decree. In November 2000, W moved under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24 to modify the spousal support award. W claimed low earnings and a 'neurological condition' that causes her trouble sleeping, and she stayed home with the children during her marriage to H rather than pursuing her own career. H earned about $14,000 per month. The trial court dismissed W's motion, ruling 'the parties entered into a binding contract which was incorporated into the judgment and . . . the court now lacks jurisdiction to modify spousal support.' This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner