Foster v. Schorr

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed rulings enforcing a property settlement agreement between divorced spouses. The court held that the agreement required continued maintenance payments despite the recipient’s remarriage, did not warrant reformation for unilateral mistake, and supported rent for the former marital residence and payment of cancer insurance premiums. The court also affirmed attorney-fee awards and credited the appellant for rent previously paid.

Holdings

1. A maintenance obligation does not terminate upon the recipient's remarriage when the parties have expressly agreed in writing that the obligation is nonmodifiable and continues for the stated contractual period.
2. Foster's alleged unilateral mistake about the encumbrance payoff date did not warrant reformation of the property settlement agreement.
3. Although spouses owe each other a fiduciary duty that continues until the marriage is finally dissolved, Schorr did not breach that duty because the evidence did not show that she misled Foster or otherwise violated the duty.
4. Foster was required to pay $1,000 per month for the months he remained in the residence after July 1, 1997, subject to a $3,300 credit for rent previously paid.
5. The PSA required Foster to maintain cancer medical insurance for Schorr, but it did not require that the policy be carried through Foster's own insurance or that Schorr remain a beneficiary of a policy owned by Foster; Foster could satisfy the obligation by paying premiums on a policy acquired by Schorr.
6. A nonbreaching spouse seeking to enforce a divorce settlement agreement is entitled to attorney fees when the agreement provides for fees incurred to enforce its terms.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Schorr's remarriage automatically terminated Foster's contractual maintenance obligation under the property settlement agreement.
2. Whether Foster's alleged unilateral mistake concerning the encumbrance payoff date warranted reformation of the property settlement agreement.
3. Whether Schorr owed Foster a fiduciary duty during negotiation of the property settlement agreement and breached that duty by failing to disclose Foster's alleged mistake.
4. Whether Foster was required to pay $1,000 per month in rent for remaining in the residence after July 1, 1997, and whether he was entitled to a credit for $3,300 previously paid.
5. Whether the property settlement agreement required Foster to pay premiums for a cancer-insurance policy acquired by Schorr after the original coverage was terminated.
6. Whether Schorr was entitled to attorney fees under the attorney-fee provision of the property settlement agreement.

Disposition

affirmed