Motion for reconsideration of an order granting the plaintiff-ex-husband’s motion to enforce a judgment of divorce & extinguishing the defendant-ex-wife’s equity in the marital home; The trial court’s equity powers; Draggoo v. Draggoo; Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n; Consent judgments & property settlements as contracts; Massachusetts Indem. & Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas; Smith v. Smith; Modification; Marshall v. Marshall; A trial court’s inherent authority to enforce its directives; Walworth v. Wimmer; Weathervane Window, Inc. v. White Lake Constr. Co.

The court reversed the trial court order denying the defendant-ex-wife’s motion for reconsideration of an order granting the plaintiff-ex-husband’s motion to enforce a judgment of divorce and extinguishing her equity in the marital home. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by extinguishing her right to equity in the marital home because the order improperly modified the property settlement provisions of the divorce judgment. The court agreed. Plaintiff’s suggestion that “a trial court retains unfettered discretion to remedy perceived inequities” was directly contradicted by case law. The court has “made clear that property settlement agreements cannot be modified absent specific exceptions—none of which is applicable here. Neither party has alleged fraud, duress, or mutual mistake. Plaintiff sought an order enforcing the judgment of divorce after defendant repeatedly failed to abide by its terms. Finding that equity favored him, the trial court entered an order to ‘enforce’ the judgement of divorce that accomplished two things: (1) it ordered defendant to execute all documents necessary for the sale of the home, and (2) it extinguished defendant’s right to any equity in the home and directed [her] to surrender all rights to the home within 30 days. Although the order to execute sale papers fell squarely within the trial court’s broad power to enter orders necessary to enforce the terms of the divorce judgment, the order extinguishing defendant’s right to equity in the home clearly violated the prohibition against property settlement agreement modification.” The order was not simply one to enforce the divorce judgment. It “actually changed the rights to property accorded to the parties in the property settlement. The trial court’s frustration with defendant’s ‘repeated and blatant disregard for and violation of court orders,’” was understandable. But it could not “revisit the equities of the more than 10-year-old divorce judgment.” Instead of penalizing defendant for her failure to cooperate with the terms of the judgment, “the trial court impermissibly altered the property settlement agreement and changed the substantive rights of the parties.” This error required reversal. However, the court noted that the trial court was not precluded “from entering an appropriate order on remand offsetting defendant’s equity in the marital home consistent with the terms of the parties’ judgment of divorce.” Remanded.