Brandon v. Brandon
Decision Date | 03 February 1940 |
Citation | 135 S.W.2d 929 |
Parties | BRANDON v. BRANDON. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; R. B. C. Howell, Chancellor.
Divorce proceeding by D. G. Brandon against Leone D. Brandon, wherein Leone D. Brandon sought to secure a determination as to whether the estate of her deceased divorced husband was required to continue payments under divorce decree. From an adverse decree Leone D. Brandon appeals.
Affirmed.
Richard Marshall, of Nashville, for appellant Mrs. Leone D. Brandon in this proceeding only.
Littell Rust, of Nashville, for appellees.
Mrs. Leone Brandon, on October 3, 1922, was granted a decree for absolute divorce from D. G. Brandon and the custody of their four minor children. The decree with reference to the allowance of alimony provided that D. G. Brandon pay into the office of the clerk of the court the sum of $250 "on the first day of each month thereafter, until the further orders of the court, as alimony for the maintenance of the said Leone D. Brandon and her said four children; * * *." The court further ordered "that as alimony, the cross-complainant, Leone D. Brandon, shall be furnished with a home out of the estate of cross-defendant, D. G. Brandon, to cost $9,000, or approximately that amount, however, not to be exceeded, and the title to the home to be vested in the said Leone D. Brandon for and during her natural life; the remainder at her death, in the surviving children, or if any of the children shall die leaving children, such children to take the parent's share."
It was further adjudged that D. G. Brandon "shall pay all taxes, state, county and municipal, that may accrue against the home so furnished, from time to time, and shall in addition pay the premiums for insurance against loss or damage by fire or lightening, in a sum not less than $6,500."
By subsequent order the monthly alimony was reduced to $150.
Mr. Brandon died on June 2, 1938. He had paid in full the monthly installments of alimony and had purchased a home for Mrs. Brandon and the title thereto was vested as ordered by the decree.
The questions presented for determination are (1) whether the estate of D. G Brandon, deceased, is liable to Mrs. Brandon for $150 for each month during the balance of her life, and (2) whether said estate is liable for taxes and insurance on the home place during her life.
The chancellor held against Mrs. Brandon on both of the above questions and she has appealed to this court and assigned errors.
(1) Alimony is allowed the wife in recognition of the husband's common law liability to support her. Toncray v. Toncray, 123 Tenn. 476, 131 S.W. 977, 34 L.R. A.,N.S., 1106, Ann.Cas.1912C, 284; Swan v. Harrison, 2 Cold. 534, 42 Tenn. 534. This liability for support of the wife necessarily ends with the death of the husband. Wilson v. Hinman, 182 N.Y. 408, 413, 75 N.E. 236, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 232, 108 Am.St. Rep. 820; Borton v. Borton, 230 Ala. 630, 162 So. 529, 101 A.L.R. 320. Alimony, therefore, is ended by the death of the husband, the event upon which the obligation of support would have ended had there been no divorce. Blades v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stafford v. Field, 7585
...Gregory v. Henderson, 230 Mo.App. 1, 88 S.W.2d 893; Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, Tex. Com.App., 27 S.W.2d 144; Brandon v. Brandon, 175 Tenn. 463, 135 S.W.2d 929; Stellwagen v. Stellwagen, 277 Mich. 412, 269 N.W. 216; Belting v. Marschner, 245 Mich. 111, 222 N.W. 137; Brooks v. Miami B......
-
Benson ex rel. Patterson v. Patterson
...v. Kennedy, 270 S.C. 358, 242 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1978) (common law duty to support one's children ends with death); Brandon v. Brandon, 175 Tenn. 463, 135 S.W.2d 929, 930 (1940) (child support ends upon death of obligor); Colombo v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 26 Utah 2d 350, 489 P.2d 998, 1000 ......
- Fannon v. City of LaFollette
-
Thomasson v. Thomasson
...some comment. Alimony was allowed the wife in recognition of the husband's common law liability to support her. Brandon v. Brandon, 175 Tenn. 463, 465, 135 S.W.2d 929 (1940); McClung v. McClung, 29 Tenn.App. 580, 198 S.W.2d 820, 822 (1946). There was (and is) no necessary connection between......