Did the trial court err in continuing Williams obligation to maintain health insurance coverage for Helen?
[¶8] William argues that the trial court erred in continuing his obligation to maintain health insurance coverage for Helen because Helen’s remarriage provided grounds for relieving him of the obligation. Resolution of this argument requires a determination of the nature of the obligation. The trial court determined that the obligation to maintain the insurance coverage was contractual in nature because it was contained in the parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement. Therefore, it held that William should be bound by the provisions of the agreement despite Helen’s remarriage. William argues that the obligation is actually in the nature of spousal support or alimony subject to modification or elimination upon a showing of changed circumstances. See Saxvik v. Saxvik, 1996 SD 18, ¶9, 544 NW2d 177, 179 (to justify a change in alimony the party seeking modification must merely prove a change of circumstances from those in existence at the time of the original decree). He further argue
Related Questions
- Did the trial court err in continuing Williams obligation to maintain health insurance coverage for Helen?
- Did Trial Court Err by Refusing to Instruct Jury on Loss of Chance Theory in Medical Malpractice Case?
- Did the trial court reversibly err by failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law?
