Cassutt v. Cassutt
Decision Date | 31 July 1923 |
Docket Number | 17991. |
Citation | 217 P. 35,126 Wash. 17 |
Parties | CASSUTT v. CASSUTT. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith, Judge.
Action for divorce by Bertha M. Cassutt against Casper J. Cassutt. From an order modifying the final decree with respect to the payment of alimony, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Chas C. Curtis, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ryan & Desmond, of Seattle, for respondent.
On August 25, 1921, the lower court, in a divorce action between the parties hereto, made findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that appellant was entitled to an interlocutory order of divorce from respondent, and on that day signed and entered the interlocutory order.
Among other things the court found that the community property of the parties consisted, with other property, of a business known as the Seattle Music House, of the approximate value of between $40,000 and $50,000. The court concluded that appellant was entitled to, and respondent should pay to her as and for maintenance, support for herself, and as a final settlement of the community property rights of the parties the sum of $15,000, in installments of $400 on the 1st of each and every month thereafter until the total sum of $15,000, together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum, should be fully paid, and impressed a lien in favor of appellant against the business known as the Seattle Music House, to secure the faithful performance on the part of respondent of the order of the court. The court at the same time awarded the business of the music house, of the approximate value of between $40,000 and $50,000, to respondent, as his separate property. A bond of $20,000 was also required, and furnished by respondent and another for the security of the above payments. The interlocutory order was never appealed from, set aside, or modified. On September 2, 1922, the lower court signed and entered its final decree granting appellant a divorce from respondent, and confirming in all respects the interlocutory order entered on August 25, 1921. Respondent complied with the order as to the payments of the installments up to and including February, 1923.
On February 28, 1923, respondent petitioned the trial court for an order modifying the final decree in the cause to the extent that, instead of being required to pay $400 on the 1st day of each and every month to apply on the $15,000 awarded to appellant, he pay only $150 per month. After a hearing over the objections of appellant to the entertainment of the petition to modify, the trial court entered an order on April 6, 1923, modifying the final decree, from which order of modification appellant appeals.
Appellant contends that the trial court had no authority to modify the final decree or the interlocutory order which had become final at the expiration of six months from the date of its entry. The interlocutory decree concluded as follows:
'It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this court expressly retains jurisdiction of all matters herein and of the parties to this action for any and all purposes.'
In the final decree, entered on September 6, 1922, which was, it seems, on appellant's own motion, this clause was incorporated:
In 1921 the Legislature amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
High v. High
...Court, 24 Wash.2d 371, 164 P.2d 890; Kern v. Kern, 28 Wash.2d 617, 183 P.2d 811. Without detailing at length the facts of Cassutt v. Cassutt, 126 Wash. 17, 217 P. 35, Brown v. Brown, 192 Wash. 333, 73 P.2d 795, and Ford v. Ford, 22 Wash.2d [252 P.2d 275] 303, 155 P.2d 485, we are of the opi......
-
State ex rel. Lang v. Superior Court for King County
... ... statutes on divorce and alimony are not applicable. It was so ... held in Cassutt v. Cassutt, 126 Wash. 17, 217 P. 35, ... 36, wherein it was said: ... 'It ... will be observed that the law of 1921 (p ... ...
-
Robinson v. Robinson
... ... § 988; Rem.Rev.Stat. § ... 989, it had no jurisdiction to change the property rights as ... fixed by the interlocutory decree, Cassutt v ... Cassutt, 126 Wash. 17, 217 P. 35; State ex rel ... Bushnell v. Superior Court, 168 Wash. 326, 11 P.2d 1071; ... and we have ... ...
-
State v. Superior Court for King County
...order, subsequently confirmed by the entry of a final decree or divorce, is not subject to modification, citing Cassutt v. Cassutt, 126 Wash. 17, 217 P. 35; Cooper v. Cooper, 146 Wash. 612, 264 P. Hutchison v. Hutchison, 148 Wash. 417, 269 P. 341. Respondent contends that in such a situatio......