Motion to enforce a consent divorce judgment; Provision requiring a party to either refinance or sell the marital home within a specified time; Whether a provision as to the division of the home equity was ambiguous & incomplete

Agreeing with plaintiff-ex-husband that the real property provision of the parties’ consent divorce judgment required defendant-ex-wife to either refinance the marital home within 90 days of the date specified in the judgment or sell it, the court vacated the trial court’s order denying his motions to enforce the judgment in this regard, and remanded. It also agreed with him that the judgment provision as to the division of the home equity was ambiguous and incomplete, requiring remand. The court concluded that the plain language of the real property provision clearly and unambiguously required defendant “to refinance the home within 90 days of” the specified date, 9/11/19, or sell it. The record showed that she did not refinance it by 12/11/19 and did not sell it. “Without explanation, the trial court did not order defendant to sell the home despite not refinancing” it by 12/11/19, and denied plaintiff’s motions. It did not make any “finding of fraud, mutual mistake, or duress.” Thus, the court held that the trial court erred in “failing to enforce the unambiguous terms of the consent judgment of divorce and require defendant to sell the home because she failed to refinance within 90 days of” 9/11/19. On remand, the trial court is to enforce the judgment’s unambiguous terms. Plaintiff further argued that the provision stating that he was to “receive $50,500 ‘if there are no additional liens’ on the property” was ambiguous and incomplete, and that the trial court erred in not addressing “what constitutes an additional lien or how” one would be applied to his share of the equity “and by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the second mortgage constituted an additional lien.” The court again agreed. In the absence of factual findings or record evidence as to “the liens contemplated by the judgment of divorce or the second mortgage, the accuracy of the trial court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion” was not apparent. The court vacated “in part and remanded for the trial court to enforce the unambiguous terms of the judgment of divorce, address what constitutes an additional lien and the effect of any additional lien on the amount of equity owed to plaintiff, and, if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing on the second mortgage.”