Preview:

NO.

95-370

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATHRYN MEWHINNEY, a/k/a KATHRYN IDE, Plaintiff and Respondent, and

APPEAL FROM:

District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable John W. Larson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Mark E. Jones, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Dennis Lind; Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Eriefs: Decided: Filed:

November 30, 1995 December 12, 1995

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to State Reporter and West Publishing Company. Thomas Lee Ide appeals from the May 8, 1995 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, implementing the settlement agreement reached by the parties. We affirm.

We consider the following issue on appeal: Did the District Court err in determining that the settlement agreement executed by Thomas and Kathryn was a legally binding contract? Thomas Lee Ide (Thomas) and Kathryn Mewhinney (Kathryn) began their relationship in 1982. Kathryn alleges that she and Thomas In September of 1994, Kathryn In January of 1995,

entered into a common law marriage.

filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.

Kathryn and Thomas negotiated and executed a settlement agreement. On February 6, 1995, Thomas attempted to rescind and, later that same day, to reinstate the agreement. both parties. The agreement was signed by

Shortly after the parties executed the agreement,

Thomas asserted that no common law marriage existed between them and, thus, that no divisible marital estate existed and, therefore, that the settlement agreement was unenforceable. Kathryn petitioned the District Court for an Order to Show
2

Cause why the settlement agreement should not be enforced. A hearing was held and, over Kathryn's objection, Thomas presented evidence that no common law marriage existed between the parties. At the hearing, Kathryn presented her evidence supporting the

enforceability of the settlement agreement pursuant to her motion to show cause. The District Court concluded that the settlement Thomas appeals

agreement was a valid and enforceable contract. from this determination.

In determining whether the District Court was correct in concluding that a valid and enforceable contract existed, we determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law is correct. St.Rep. Kreger v. Francis (Mont. 19951, 898 P.2d 672, 674, 52 493, 494; Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 245 At the time the agreement

Mont. 470, 474-75, 803 P.2d 601, 603-04.

was executed, both Thomas and Kathryn were represented by counsel and the fact that Thomas made revisions to the agreement indicates that he had read the agreement. 254 Mont. 501, 839 P.2d 574. stated that: The parties hereto have had a long term relationship with each other which they now intend to terminate. No formalization of any marriage ever occurred between the parties, however, the parties acknowledge that this relationship may nonetheless have constituted a common law marriage and acknowledge that their relationship is with no opportunity irretrievably broken for reconciliation. . . . Each of the parties hereto has and preparation of this entered into negotiation Agreement with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences, and there have been no arrangements, understandings or connivance of any kind or character between the parties for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the other to this Agreement, and both of the 3 In re Marriage of Woodford (1992), The agreement signed by the parties

parties are fully confident that this Agreement has been
made free from fraud or imposition, coercion or duress, and without unfair persuasion or domination of either of said parties by the other or by any other person.

[Emphasis added.1 Thus, the agreement recognizes that the question of whether a

common law marriage existed was disputable. However, regardless of whether or not Thomas and Kathryn had a common law marriage, they entered into a valid, appeal, binding, and enforceable contract. On

however, Thomas argues that the fact that he and Kathryn

were not common law married allows him to disregard the agreement. His earlier statements in the recitals of the agreement undermine his position and show that the agreement was intended to be binding on the parties and to resolve all issues between the parties including the issue of whether there was a common law marriage. The parties according contract. and, entered into a separation agreement, which,

to

Download 95f9f16a-acfd-4502-8162-2d6b110e47da.pdf

Montana Law