Former husband appealed from trial court decision that it did not have jurisdiction to modify or terminate the former husband’s spousal support obligation because the parties had agreed on the amount, length, and terminating events of spousal support. The former husband claimed the court had jurisdiction because, in addition to those specific terminating events, the agreement also provided that, “the court shall reserve jurisdiction to modify or terminate maintenance … as provided in K.S.A. §60-1610(b)(2).”

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to modify or terminate spousal support and remanded the case to a different district court judge:

1. When a marital settlement agreement reserves jurisdiction to modify or terminate alimony, the trial court has power to modify that agreed alimony bit.ly/uBpHRO

2. Although an agreed property settlement agreement may state limited reasons for alimony modification, if that property settlement agreement also reserves to the court jurisdiction to modify under KSA 60-1610, the trial court has power to modify or terminate the agreed spousal support. bit.ly/uBpHRO

3. Although the trial court provided an alternative basis for its refusal to modify alimony, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision bit.ly/uBpHRO

4. When spouses settlement their divorce, they have the power to limit the terms for payment and length of their right and obligation for alimony bit.ly/uBpHRO

5. Parties in a divorce have the power to limit the court’s later power to modify resolved alimony agreements bit.ly/uBpHRO

6. When parties agree that the court has power to modify alimony under 60-1610, the court may modify or terminate the obligation if  a ‘material change’ occurs bit.ly/uBpHRO

7. Court of Appeals reversed trial court decision on post-decree motion to modify or terminate alimony because the denial was ‘not fairly considered’ bit.ly/uBpHRO

8. Court of Appeals remands motion to modify or terminate spousal support to a different trial judge because of perceived lack of fair hearing on that motion bit.ly/uBpHRO

9. It is important for those appearing in Kansas courts to have confidence that they receive a fair hearing on their requests bit.ly/uBpHRO

10. Given Trial Cts Strongly Stated Views Against Party’s Motion & error in law, Ct remands to different judge bit.ly/uBpHRO