In 2003 the former trial judge
ordered the Husband to pay rehabilitative alimony to the Wife for 36 months
during which time she was to enter into and complete a dental hygienist
program. The original judge also specifically denied permanent alimony because
he considered the parties' ten year marriage to have been short-term. The Wife
enrolled in the program and was advancing until the Husband undertook a series
of actions specifically designed to undermine her progress (which were never
explained in the opinion), which forced her to drop out of the program. The
Wife then sought to have the rehabilitative alimony either extended or
converted into an award of permanent alimony. Before the matter came to trial
however, the parties stipulated that the Wife would not seek the extension;
instead she would seek only the conversion to permanent alimony. Neither party,
however, told the trial judge about their stipulation. At the conclusion of the
trial, the successor judge awarded an extension of rehabilitative alimony and
specifically denied a conversion to permanent based on res judicata (i.e., the
original trial judge had denied the award). Both parties then moved for
rehearing and explained that neither wanted the extension. The judge denied
rehearing and the District Court held:
1. "This is a troubling case.
It is troubling because the trial judge fashioned a fair and equitable result
after carefully considering the evidence presented to him. Unfortunately, it
appears that the relief fashioned was not what either party wanted, and neither
seems to have told the court during the course of the trial that the request
for the relief that was granted had been withdrawn by stipulation. Thus, we are
compelled to reverse."
2. "We begin by noting that in
every case the issues in a cause are made solely by the pleadings…. [T]he
parties here had a clear procedural foundation allowing them to amend the
former wife's claim by a written stipulation, even without leave of
court."
3. "Furthermore, stipulations
narrowing the issues, or as in this case, modifying the former wife's
supplemental counter-petition so as to drop her alternative request to extend
her rehabilitative alimony plan, are of value to the legal system as they
simplify the issues, limit or shorten litigation, save costs to the parties,
and preserve judicial economy and resources."