## Facts

- Conrad R. Toni and Sheila A. Toni married in 1971 and divorced in 1999 after a 28-year marriage; they had three children, with one minor at the time of divorce.
- Before entry of judgment, the parties signed a written custody and property settlement agreement addressing custody, property division, and spousal support.
- The agreement provided joint physical custody of the minor child and divided real property, stocks, and retirement accounts without listing asset values.
- The agreement required Conrad to pay Sheila $5,000 per month in spousal support beginning May 1, 1999, terminating on the death of either party, Sheila’s remarriage, or the April 1, 2002 payment.
- The agreement stated Sheila was not represented by counsel, acknowledged Conrad’s attorney did not represent her, and asserted she entered the agreement voluntarily.
- The agreement included mutual representations of full disclosure of assets and liabilities and stated the parties regarded the agreement as fair and equitable.
- The agreement characterized itself as a full and final settlement and expressly sought to eliminate continuing judicial authority to modify the amount and term of spousal support.
- The district court found the agreement fair, just, and equitable, incorporated it into the divorce judgment, and granted the divorce.
- About one year later, Sheila moved to modify spousal support under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24, asserting the support was inadequate, the assets she received were worth less than expected, and an anticipated remarriage did not occur.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to modify spousal support because of the parties’ agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 gives a court continuing jurisdiction to modify spousal support notwithstanding a court-approved divorce settlement that expressly makes support nonmodifiable and purports to divest the court of jurisdiction over the amount and term of support.
2. Whether a comprehensive, integrated property-and-support settlement incorporated into the divorce judgment can be enforced as a final contract barring later modification absent grounds to set it aside.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the order denying Sheila’s motion to modify spousal support.
- The court held the settlement agreement was enforceable as an integrated, final contractual resolution that validly limited the court’s post-judgment power to modify the amount and duration of spousal support.
- The court rejected the argument that N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 creates an unconditional, nonwaivable right to seek modification in all cases.
- The court concluded Sheila’s asserted post-judgment dissatisfaction and changed expectations did not provide a basis to invalidate the agreement or restore modification jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may enforce divorce settlement agreements as contracts when the terms show an intent to resolve issues finally and the agreement is approved as fair, just, and equitable and incorporated into the judgment.
- N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24’s general authorization to modify spousal support “as may be justified” does not necessarily override a court-approved, integrated property-and-support settlement that clearly makes the support obligation final and nonmodifiable as to amount and duration.
- A party seeking to avoid the binding effect of a final, integrated settlement ordinarily must show legally recognized grounds to set aside the agreement (such as fraud, duress, or similar defect), not merely that later events made the bargain less favorable.
- Failure to challenge the original judgment approving and incorporating a settlement weighs against later attempts to alter support terms by modification.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the parties’ comprehensive divorce settlement as a final, integrated contract and held the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify spousal support where the agreement, approved and incorporated into the judgment as fair and equitable, expressly made the amount and term of support nonmodifiable.


Toni v. Toni, 636 N.W.2d 396 (N.D. 2001)