Button v. Button
Decision Date | 29 August 1966 |
Citation | 222 A.2d 245 |
Parties | Constance J. BUTTON v. John J. BUTTON. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Charles W. Smith and Roger S. Elliott, Saco, for plaintiff.
Marshall, Melnick & Caron, by Edward L. Caron, Biddeford, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, RUDMAN, and DUFRESNE, JJ.
This is an appeal from the denial of recovery for amounts due under a temporary support order in a divorce action. The case is fully stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the Justice hearing the cause in the Superior Court, as follows:
'This Decree shall not prevent the Plaintiff from collecting any arrearage on any Support Order in force at the time of this Judgment.'
'On July 26, 1965 Plaintiff brought a motion for capias execution alleging that there was due the sum of $375.00 under the temporary Order of Support dated April 21, 1964 for the period ending November 9, 1964, and in addition alleging that there was an arrearage of $105.00 under the support order as set forth in the divorce decree dated November 9, 1964.
'I find that there was an arrearage of $375.00 under the temporary support order dated April 21, 1964 and also an arreage of $105.00 under the support order contained in the divorce decree, such latter arrearage covering the period from the date of the decree of divorce to the date of the Motion, July 26, 1965.
The Justice thereupon ruled that the plaintiff was entitled only to judgment for $105 due under the final decree of divorce with counsel fees and entered judgment accordingly.
We sustain the plaintiff's appeal. In our view, while the support decree pending the action terminated on entry of the final decree, nevertheless the obligations created thereunder were not destroyed. We see no reason why the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Wood
...material change of circumstances, modify the decree even retroactively. Gardner v. Perry, Me., 405 A.2d 721, 724 (1979); Button v. Button, Me., 222 A.2d 245, 247 (1966); Wilson v. Wilson, 143 Me. 113, 117, 56 A.2d 453, 456 (1947). See also Mahaney v. Crocker, supra, 149 Me. at 79, 98 A.2d a......
-
Prather v. Prather
...E.g., Washington v. Washington, 163 Cal.App.2d 129, 329 P.2d 115 (1958); Bork v. Richardson, 289 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1980); Button v. Button, 222 A.2d 245 (Me.1966); Mazer v. Mazer, 276 A.D. 733, 97 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1950); Ex parte Davis, 597 S.W.2d 501 (Tex.Civ.App.1980). See Annot., 154 A.L.R. 5......
-
Lewis v. Lewis
...E.g., Washington v. Washington, 163 Cal.App.2d 129, 329 P.2d. 115 (1958); Bork v. Richardson, 289 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1980); Button v. Button, 222 A.2d 245 (Me.1966); Mazer v. Mazer, 276 A.D. 733, 97 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1950); Ex parte Davis, 597 S.W.2d 501 (Tex.Civ.App.1980). See Annot., 154 A.L.R. ......
-
Chaker v. Chaker
...815, 818 (1953) (order for alimony pendente lite is interlocutory and terminates with the judgment which follows it); Button v. Button, 222 A.2d 245, 247 (Me.1966) (support and alimony decree pending the action terminated on entry of the final decree). At one time, however, the final order ......