Bulandr v. Bulandr
| Decision Date | 16 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 47680 |
| Citation | 162 N.E.2d 585,23 Ill.App.2d 299 |
| Parties | Henrietta BULANDR, Appellant, v. Jerry BULANDR, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Friedman, Friedman, Teed & Armstrong, Chicago, for appellant.
John H. Ehardt, Chicago, Arthur A. Lieberman, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.
This case arises on appeal from three post-decree orders concerning child custody and visitation rights, child support and alimony. The original decree gave the mother-plaintiff custody of the minor child, allowed $20 weekly for child support and awarded alimony in gross amounting to $3,500, payable at the rate of $22 per week. The father-defendant was granted certain visitation rights.
The first question we will consider is that arising on the order that an attachment issue against plaintiff for her failure to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for denying defendant the right of visitation. Plaintiff argues that no notice was personally served on her, as required by the order. Defendant argues that the order is not a final and appealable one. Defendant's position is well taken. No order was entered finding plaintiff guilty of contempt and imposing a penalty. These are the final steps in a contempt proceeding, from which an appeal may be taken. What occurs before these final steps is interlocutory and not appealable. Flaningam v. Flaningam, 1947, 331 Ill.App. 418, 73 N.E.2d 652; McEwen v. McEwen, 1894, 55 Ill.App. 340.
The next order complained of suspended payment of the installments on the amount of alimony awarded in gross. Plaintiff contends that this order was a divestiture of a vested right of payment due as a property settlement. The divorce decree provided that plaintiff was to receive certain real and personal property and in addition thereto the sum of $3,500 'in full of all her rights to alimony past, present and future,' to be paid in weekly installments of $22. It is questionable whether such a provision is subject to modification. However, the court did not modify the order. It merely suspended payments temporarily. The record shows that plaintiff left the state without leaving any address to which payments of alimony could be forwarded. Under those circumstances it was proper for the court to grant defendant a suspension of payments until further order.
Plaintiff's final contention is that the court's order of October 2, 1958, should be reversed because temporary custody of the child was awarded to defendant without a hearing and as a penalty for plaintiff's failure to observe visitation rights granted defendant by the divorce decree. The order shows that defendant was present and testified and that plaintiff was represented by counsel. The requirement that a hearing be held in custody proceedings was thus met. Gerst v. Gerst, 1953, 349 Ill.App. 201, 110 N.E.2d 470.
A more serious question arises, however, with regard to the sufficiency of the court's findings necessary to support a change in custody, as here attempted. The order found that plaintiff left the jurisdiction of the court on April 27, 1958, and remained out of the state since that date with the minor child, made other findings with respect to the body attachment and suspension of payments, and then ordered that temporary custody of the child be awarded to defendant until the further order of the court and until a full hearing could be had relative to permanent custody. Nowhere did the court make a finding as to the lack of fitness of plaintiff to retain custody of the child.
Courts in Illinois have established the policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siegel v. Siegel
...conduct in violating that court's prior orders. In these circumstances we believe the judgment appealable. Bulandr v. Bulandr (1959), 23 Ill.App.2d 299, 162 N.E.2d 585; Szczawinski v. Szczawinski (1962), 37 Ill.App.2d 350, 185 N.E.2d The statutory provisions relevant to our consideration of......
-
Kminek v. Kminek
...and hold a formal hearing on the provisions set forth therein. Among the numerous cases cited by petitioner is Bulandr v. Bulandr (1959), 23 Ill.App.2d 299, 162 N.E.2d 585, where the court simply held that the requirement of a hearing was met where the parties are present and testified and ......
-
Ehr v. Ehr
...a child should not be awarded because of one parent's conduct in regard to court orders or visitation rights. (Bulandr v. Bulandr, 23 Ill.App.2d 299, 303, 162 N.E.2d 585 (1959).) The Commissioners' note on the modification provisions of UCCJA is appropriate here: "If the court overturns its......
-
Vanderlaan v. Vanderlaan
...have noted that the changed conditions that are relevant are those of the custodial parent (defendant here). Bulandr v. Bulandr, 23 Ill.App.2d 299, 303, 162 N.E.2d 585. As to the support payments, the court made a specific finding that the defendant had substantially complied with them. Fur......