Mortgages and Divorce | Salt Lake City Utah

“The hold harmless provision at issue in this case does not differ in any material respect from those interpreted in the cases we have just examined. See generally Long v. McAllister–Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 10–12 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (reasoning that “[a] hold harmless agreement … is generally classified as an indemnity against liability” agreement). As acknowledged in Long, a divorce decree is interpreted “according to established rules of contract interpretation” and its effect is determined by its plain language, Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2011 UT App 41, ¶ 5, 248 P.3d 65 (mem.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Long, 221 S.W.3d at 9, 11. The hold harmless provision in the Gardners’ divorce decree orders Wife “to assume and pay and hold [Husband] harmless from … the … mortgage.” As recognized in Lemery, to “hold harmless” means “[t]o absolve (another party) from any responsibility for damage or other liability arising from the transaction,” Black’s Law Dictionary 800 (9th ed. 2009). See Lemery, 2001 WL 1160797 at *2 (looking to the definition of “hold harmless” to interpret a hold harmless provision in a divorce decree). By requiring absolution from “any responsibility for damage or other liability,” Black’s Law Dictionary 800 (9th ed. 2009) (emphasis added), the definition of “hold harmless” indicates that Wife must “prevent harm or loss to” Husband regardless of whether he has “actually paid an obligation for which [Wife] has been found liable,” see Long, 221 S.W.3d at 10–12. In addition, the hold harmless provision requires Wife to both “pay” the mortgage and to “hold [Husband] harmless” from the mortgage.”