# Marriage of Halverson v. Halverson

> Court of Appeals of Minnesota · February 11, 1986 · 381 N.W.2d 69

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730545

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re the Marriage of Nora Shay HALVERSON, Petitioner, Respondent, v. Joel F. HALVERSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Minnesota
- **Decided:** February 11, 1986
- **Citations:** 381 N.W.2d 69; 1986 Minn. App. LEXIS 3976
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Parker
- **Judges:** Nierengarten, Parker, Forsberg, Nierengar-Ten
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730545

## Opinion text

PARKER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The majority affirms the trial court’s de-cisión which applies the language of both sentences of paragraph two of the stipulation to determine the amount of maintenance to be paid; they are however, inconsistent. If each sentence is viewed as a complete thought, in accord with customary english usage, the first sentence is seen to state the amount to be paid:
2. Maintenance. As and for fulfillment of his duty to support Petitioner, Respondent shall pay the sum of $6,000.00, in addition to the temporary maintenance payments made as of the date of signing of this stipulation.
The second sentence may then be read in harmony with the first; it states the method and time of payment:
Respondent shall continue to make monthly payments of $300 until the decree is entered; and shall pay $2,000 within 30 days of the entry of the decree, $2,000 within 60 days of the entry of the decree, and the balance within 90 days of the entry of the decree.
Note that the last lump-sum payment is not specified as $2,000 but as a balance because the last lump sum to be paid cannot be determined until the date of entry of the decree is known.
I suggest that the trial court ignored customary english usage as a guide to the meaning of language. I would hold that there is no ambiguity and that the two sentences may be read in harmony.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730545. Public record. Not legal advice.