Solomon v. Findley
808 P.2d 294, 167 Ariz. 409 (1991)
Rule of Law:
A contractual agreement for child support beyond the age of majority, even when incorporated into a divorce decree, does not merge into the decree. This provision retains its character as an independent contract and must be enforced through a separate breach of contract action, not through the divorce court, which lacks jurisdiction over post-majority support.
Facts:
- Wilma Cornell Solomon and Lloyd Talbott Findley filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage.
- The petition contained a provision stating that Findley agreed to provide educational funds for their child, Adrienne, through college or until age 25.
- This agreement was approved by the divorce court and incorporated into the final dissolution decree.
- After Adrienne reached the age of majority, a dispute arose over Findley's obligation to provide the educational funds as agreed.
Procedural Posture:
- Wilma Cornell Solomon first sought to enforce the decree in divorce court by filing an order to show cause against Lloyd Talbott Findley.
- The divorce court denied the requested relief, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because the child, Adrienne, was beyond the age of minority.
- Solomon then filed a new breach of contract action against Findley in the trial court.
- The trial court granted Findley's motion to dismiss, finding that the agreement had merged into the divorce decree and the claim stemmed from the judgment, not the contract.
- Solomon, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed the trial court's dismissal.
- Findley, as petitioner, sought review of the court of appeals' decision by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the post-minority support provisions of a contract between divorcing parents merge into the decree of dissolution so as to bar a separate claim for breach of contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cameron
No. The post-minority support provisions of a contract between divorcing parents do not merge into the dissolution decree and therefore do not bar a separate claim for breach of contract. A divorce court's jurisdiction is statutorily limited to enforcing child support for minors. Because the court lacks authority to order or enforce support for a child who has reached the age of majority, a contractual provision for such support cannot merge into the decree. Instead, it retains its independent nature as a contract. The proper remedy for a breach of this agreement is a separate lawsuit for breach of contract, not an enforcement action in the divorce court. In reaching this conclusion, the court explicitly overrules its prior decision in Helber v. Frazelle.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the enforceability of post-majority support agreements, establishing a crucial distinction between a court's jurisdictional power and the parties' contractual rights. By overruling prior precedent, the court provides a clear pathway for enforcing promises like college tuition support, which family courts cannot compel. This holding allows parties to create binding obligations that extend beyond a child's minority, ensuring these agreements are not rendered illusory, while simultaneously respecting the statutory limits of divorce court jurisdiction. Future litigants must now pursue such claims through standard contract law rather than family court contempt proceedings.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Solomon v. Findley (1991)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"