Bindas v. Bindas
2019 ND 56, 923 N.W.2d 803 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marital settlement agreement entered into before the enactment of a statute automatically terminating spousal support for cohabitation constitutes a written agreement 'otherwise' that precludes the statute's application, as contracts are interpreted to incorporate the law in effect at the time of their formation.
Facts:
- Michael Bindas and Mari Bindas were married in 1984.
- In 2009, as part of their divorce, they entered into a marital termination agreement.
- The agreement required Michael Bindas to pay Mari Bindas spousal support of $3,200 per month.
- The agreement specified that support would terminate upon the death of either party, Mari Bindas's remarriage, or a payment due on February 1, 2023.
- The agreement did not mention cohabitation as a condition for terminating spousal support.
- In August 2012, Mari Bindas began a relationship with her boyfriend.
- In October 2014, Mari Bindas and her boyfriend jointly purchased a home and began living together.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 2009, Michael Bindas sued Mari Bindas for divorce in a North Dakota district court (trial court).
- In November 2009, the district court entered a judgment incorporating the parties' marital termination agreement.
- In January 2018, Michael Bindas filed a motion in the same district court to modify his spousal support obligation.
- The district court granted Michael Bindas's motion, ordering the termination of his spousal support obligation.
- Mari Bindas (appellant) appealed the district court's order to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a marital termination agreement that is silent on cohabitation, executed before the enactment of a statute automatically terminating spousal support for cohabitation, constitute an agreement 'otherwise' that prevents the statute's application?
Opinions:
Majority - Tufte, J.
Yes. A marital termination agreement that is silent on cohabitation, executed before the statute's enactment, constitutes an agreement 'otherwise' that prevents the statute's application. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(3) allows for termination of spousal support upon cohabitation 'unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing.' The court reasoned that contracts incorporate the law existing at the time they are made. In 2009, when the Bindas' agreement was executed, the controlling case law (Cermak v. Cermak) held that cohabitation alone could not be the basis for terminating spousal support. Therefore, the agreement's silence on the issue effectively incorporated the existing law, making it an 'agreement otherwise' that satisfies the statutory exception. The district court erred by applying the new statute without considering the legal context in which the original agreement was formed.
Concurring - Crothers, J.
Yes. The pre-statute agreement constitutes an 'agreement otherwise' because the law at the time of its creation is incorporated into it. This concurrence is written to explain the 'seemingly perverse result' where silence in the agreement prevents termination, even though the statute seems to require it. The key is timing. The 2009 agreement was made under a legal regime where cohabitation did not terminate support, so silence meant support continued. The 2015 statute changed the default rule, but it cannot retroactively alter the legal effect of the 2009 agreement. The concurrence emphasizes that if an identical agreement silent on cohabitation were executed after the statute's effective date (August 1, 2015), the result would be the opposite, and support would be terminated.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the temporal application of North Dakota's cohabitation-termination statute, establishing that pre-statute agreements are interpreted under the law existing at the time of their execution. The ruling creates a critical distinction for family law practitioners: for agreements pre-dating August 1, 2015, silence on cohabitation preserves spousal support, while for post-2015 agreements, silence triggers termination. This precedent protects the settled expectations of parties to older divorce decrees while putting future parties on notice that they must explicitly contract around the new statutory default if they wish for support to continue despite cohabitation.
