Facts
The case concerns the explanation of a judicially approved divorce convention. The District Court of Brig, Östlich-Raron and Goms had, by judgment of January 7, 2009, divorced the marriage of A.A. and B.A. The post-marital maintenance was regulated according to the judicially approved divorce convention of November 4, 2008, whereby A.A. had to pay 2,500 francs per month until the wife reached the ordinary AHV retirement age.
On March 22, 2011, A.A. filed a modification claim and demanded a retroactive reduction of the alimony. By judgment of October 16, 2012, the District Court reduced the maintenance to 1,650 francs per month from April 2011 onwards. The reasoning of this judgment mentioned that the maintenance contributions were to be paid until the ordinary AHV age "of the spouse" (the wife).
After B.A. reached her AHV age of 64 years, A.A. discontinued the maintenance payments. B.A. then initiated debt collection, whereupon A.A. filed an objection. The District Court dismissed the request for definitive debt enforcement, as it was apparent from the judgment of October 16, 2012 that "spouse" referred to the wife. However, upon B.A.'s appeal, the Cantonal Court of Valais granted the definitive debt enforcement.
Considerations
The Federal Court explains that the clarification procedure according to Art. 334 CPC is limited to determining the presumed intention of the court in the original approval of the divorce convention. A material amendment of the already rendered judgment is not possible in the clarification procedure.
In the present case, the Cantonal Court found…