In re Marriage of Daniel-Elliot and Daniel

“When a trial court determines that a property provision of a dissolution judgment is ambiguous, it is permitted to explain the meaning or the intent of that existing ambiguous provision, but it is not permitted to make substantive changes to the original terms of the judgment.”

Spouses file for dissolution of marriage. The trial court awarded the husband a share of the equity less the costs of refinancing. Due to quarreling among the parties, this equity was not paid. The trial court issued a supplemental judgment that awarded the husband the dollar valuation of that equity less the costs of refinancing. The wife appeals, arguing the trial court did not have the authority to alter the agreement like this. A trial court is prohibited from modifying the property division of a dissolution judgment, but they may interpret within reason. Here, the trial court made substantive additions to the judgment. The Court of Appeals reasoned this created a creditor-debtor relationship not contemplated in the original. The court held the trial court erred by granting the husband an uncontemplated money award. Reverse and remand.