Horner v. Carter

969 N.E.2d 111 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and Carter (W) were divorced in 2005 after thirty-eight years of marriage. The parties reached a mediated settlement agreement, which the trial court incorporated into the decree of dissolution. As part of the agreement, H was to assist W in purchasing a new residence once their original home was sold. H agreed to pay the sum of $550.00 per month (taxes and insurance included) towards the purchase of new residence. The new residence was to be titled in H's name alone, but W would have exclusive possession of the new residence and a life estate in the new residence. Until the marital residence was sold, H was responsible for the mortgage/utility payments. H agreed to pay $600.00 per day in maintenance unless otherwise modified by the Court or the death of W. The parties were unable to sell the former marital residence, and H entered into a contract with W's boyfriend, Billy Carter, to sell the residence to Carter. The contract required Carter to pay H $660 per month. When W married Carter in 2007, the parties filed an agreed-upon entry that terminated H's monthly maintenance obligation to W. H did not seek a modification of his obligation to make monthly housing payments to W at that time. Carter paid H $660 each month until sometime in 2010. H paid the mortgages, taxes, and other financial obligations on the property in excess of $800 each month. By early 2011, Carter had fallen many months behind in his monthly payment, and H evicted Carter and W. W filed a motion for rule to show cause alleging that H had failed to make the $550 monthly housing payments to W. H claimed he had fulfilled his obligation to W by selling the former marital residence to Carter and by paying the mortgage, taxes, and other bills associated with the property. H also filed a motion to modify the settlement agreement and terminate his monthly housing payments to W. H argued that there was a mistake in the settlement agreement because his obligation to make housing payments to W was actually maintenance, which terminated upon W's remarriage. The mediator refused to accept H's testimony of what he told the mediator about the understanding of the agreement. In the court's judgment, the provisions requiring H to provide funds for W's housing during her lifetime were in the nature of a property settlement, specifically to offset W's release of her right to a portion of H's pension. The court determined that H had a continuing obligation to provide the $550 monthly housing payment to W. H appealed.