Altman v. Altman

Citations: 240 Ark. 370; 399 S.W.2d 501; 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1311Docket: 5-3788

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 28, 1966; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mrs. Altman, the appellant, initiated a lawsuit asserting rights under a 1961 contract with Mr. Altman, the appellee, who responded with a demurrer. The Trial Court upheld this demurrer and dismissed Mrs. Altman’s complaint, prompting her appeal. The primary issue on appeal is whether the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. While the dates of the marriage and separation are not specified, it is inferred that the Altmans married before 1943, given their children's ages in 1961. The couple, residing in Oklahoma, entered into a comprehensive 'Separation Agreement and Contract for Property Settlement' on January 31, 1961, which was approved in their divorce decree on October 5, 1961. 

The 1961 agreement outlined several key provisions, including: (a) division of personal property; (b) transfer of specified real estate to each party; (c) support obligations for the wife and children, detailed in Paragraph 8; (d) procedures for selling real estate; and (e) duration of support payments. Paragraph 8 emphasized the support for Mrs. Altman and their three children, acknowledging various income sources from the wife’s property, including rental income and mineral rights. The husband’s obligation was to supplement this income, ensuring a total annual support of $5,000, with reductions linked to the children's educational milestones. Additionally, it specified the payment of medical expenses, taxes on real estate, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs.

Husband is obligated to provide support payments to Wife, supplementing her property income, allowing her to receive specified amounts annually. Immediately upon execution of the agreement, Husband will begin making monthly payments of $5,000 and additional advancements as necessary. Income from Wife's property will be credited against these payments, delaying further obligations until the property income is exhausted. The case arose when Mrs. Altman filed suit alleging violations of their 1961 agreement, claiming over $10,000 due to Mr. Altman's failure to account for oil payments and rentals collected from her property. Mr. Altman responded with a demurrer, asserting that the claim was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations due to the nature of the payments. The Chancery Court upheld this view; however, it was determined that the 5-year statute of limitations applies, as the complaint is based on the written support contract. The court clarified that the focus was solely on the statute of limitations issue and noted that Mrs. Altman also claimed unpaid support related to medical bills, taxes, insurance, and home maintenance from the agreement.

Mrs. Altman attached her income tax returns from 1961 to 1964 to her complaint, revealing income exceeding $5,000 each year from various sources unrelated to the property covered by a 1961 agreement. The Trial Court ruled that her complaint did not state a cause of action based on this income threshold. A critical issue is whether the $5,000 figure in Section 8(a) of the contract limits the obligations set forth in Sections 8(b) to 8(e). The court refrained from expressing an opinion on this matter. Additionally, the record lacks clarity on the timing of the Altmans' separation prior to their divorce decree on October 5, 1961. If Mr. Altman received payments while they were still living together, the 1961 agreement would not govern those payments, as it only takes effect after separation. Oklahoma Statutes, Title 12, 1279 might apply to these circumstances. This uncertainty also pertains to a joint bank account mentioned in Mrs. Altman’s complaint. The court determined that Mrs. Altman's cause of action was based on a written agreement governed by a five-year statute of limitations. The court reversed the lower court's decision that sustained the demurrer and remanded the case. Following the signing of the initial instrument, the couple resumed marital relations on February 12, 1961, but shortly thereafter executed a 'Supplemental Agreement' affirming that the original separation agreement would remain effective upon any future separation. This agreement states that a divorce initiated by one party dissolves the marriage contract for both and prohibits claims to each other's property.