Anderson v. Anderson
| Citation | 291 N.W. 508,207 Minn. 338 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 32260. |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.
Action for divorce by Elsie Marion Anderson against Carl I Anderson, wherein the plaintiff procured a decree. Thereafter the plaintiff moved to have the aggregate amount of support money accrued and unpaid under decree determined and to cause judgment therefor to be formally entered, to have defendant ordered to pay the judgment and direct issuance of an execution, and to punish the defendant for contempt if he refused or failed to carry out the order. From an order denying relief, the plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
A former wife who was awarded custody of child in divorce action could not enforce accrued installments for support of the child as provided for in the divorce decree, where she had intentionally violated decree's provisions by taking the child outside the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction.
Syllabus by the Court .
A divorced wife who has been awarded the custody of a child cannot enforce accrued installments of the obligation to support the child as provided for in the decree when she has intentionally violated its provisions by taking the child outside the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying relief.
B. H Bowler, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
L. M Hatlestad, of Duluth, for respondent.
On April 16, 1929, plaintiff procured a divorce from defendant. Custody of the child, an eight year old boy, was given to plaintiff, the mother, subject to the right of defendant to have him for specified periods. The decree provided that the child was not to be taken out of the ‘ jurisdiction’ of the court by either parent without the written consent of the other or without an order of the court made after due notice.
The decree ordered defendant to pay $25 per month for the support of the child. In February, 1930, the decree was amended in respects not here material.
In July, 1930, plaintiff procured permission from the district court to take the child from Duluth to Minneapolis where she had moved. In November of the same year, plaintiff obtained a position in California. From Minneapolis, she wired Judge Magney of the district court for St. Louis county for permission to take the child with her. Judge Magney responded that he could not grant such a request without a hearing. Apparently fearing that delay would result in the loss of the promised position and upon advice of an attorney (not plaintiff's present counsel), plaintiff deliberately took the child to California. Her whereabouts and that of the child was purposely kept from defendant.
Defendant was not in default in payments until the instalment for November 5, 1930. Since that time, the support money ordered has not been paid. In 1938, plaintiff first sought to obtain recovery of the accrued unpaid installments. In August, 1938 on an order to show cause, Judge Kenny denied relief. In November, 1938, plaintiff made a motion before Judge Fesler to (1) determine the aggregate amount of support money accrued and unpaid under the decree and cause judgment therefor to be formally entered; (2) order defendant to pay the judgment and direct issuance of an execution; (3) punish defendant for contempt if he refused or failed to carry out the order. Relief was denied. Plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial