Ceiga v. Ceiga, 17137.

Decision Date02 December 1943
Docket NumberNo. 17137.,17137.
Citation114 Ind.App. 205,51 N.E.2d 493
PartiesCEIGA v. CEIGA.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Porter Circuit Court; Charles W. Jensen, Judge.

Action by Pearl Ceiga against Charles A. Ceiga on a postnuptial agreement. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed with instructions.Roberts & Roberts, of Lowell, and George E. Hershman, of Crown Point, for appellant.

Conroy & Glendening, of Hammond, and Louis J. Simbalmos, of East Chicago, for appellee.

ROYSE, Presiding Judge.

This is an action involving a post-nuptial agreement in reference to the property rights of appellant and appellee. On March 8, 1937, the parties herein were husband and wife and, having separated, they executed a contract settling their property rights. Subsequently, the Lake Circuit Court granted appellant a divorce and at the trial of said divorce action the post-nuptial contract here involved was amended by the parties in open court, submitted to and approved by the court. The decree of the Lake Circuit Court in the divorce action was as follows:

“Comes now the plaintiff in person and by V. K. Roberts, Attorney, and comes also the defendant by Louis J. Simbalmos, Attorney, in open Court and this cause is now submitted to the court for hearing and trial on the complaint and answer filed thereto, without the intervention of the jury, and the court having heard the evidence and being now duly advised in the premises finds for the plaintiff; that the plaintiff should be granted an absolute divorce from the defendant; the court further finds that the plaintiff and defendant before the filing of this action entered into a written contract adjusting and disposing of their respective property rights, which contract provided that the defendant make monthly payments of thirty dollars ($30.00) per month on the terms therein provided and which said contract, by agreement of the parties in open court and with the approval of the court, is modified and as so modified is executed by the parties in open court.

“And it is further found that the said contract as so amended and executed in open court should be and is now approved and confirmed by the court as and for a full and final settlement of the property rights by and between the parties hereto.

“It is, therefore, considered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between the parties hereto be and the same are hereby wholly dissolved and held for naught; that the plaintiff be and she is hereby granted an absolute divorce from the defendant.

“It is further considered, adjudged and decreed by the court upon the finding that the plaintiff and defendant before the filing of this action made and entered into a written contract adjusting and settling their property rights, which contract further provided for payment by the defendant to the plaintiff, in monthly installments, of thirty dollars ($30.00) per month, on the terms in said contract therein set out and which said contract, by agreement of the parties in open court and with the approval of the court, was amended and modified and as so amended and modified was executed by the parties in open court and approved by the court, is considered, adjudged and decreed by the court to be a full and final settlement of the property rights of the parties hereto”.

This decree was entered May 27, 1937. The contract referred to in said decree provides as follows:

“This Agreement Made and Entered Into, this 8th day of March, 1937, by and between Charles A. Ceiga, party of the First Part, and Pearl Ceiga, Party of the Second Part, Witnesseth:

“That, Whereas, The Parties hereto are husband and wife and contemplate procuring a divorce, and have agreed upon a settlement of their property rights, if and when the court, before whom the action shall be filed, shall award a divorce to the Party making application therefor.

“Now Therefore, In consideration of the premises, it is agreed that the said Charles A. Ceiga shall convey to Pearl Ceiga Lot No. Two (2) as marked and laid down on the original plat of the Town of Lowell, Indiana, to be her absolute property, so long as she shall remain unmarried, but if, at any time, she shall remarry or at her death, then the property reverts to the said Charles A. Ceiga, as his sole and separate property. In the event of the death of both parties the property to vest in Harold V. Ceiga.

“The said Charles A. Ceiga further agrees, That in consideration of the divorce to be granted, and as an inducement for the said Pearl Ceiga not to make application to the Court for support money, now agrees to pay to her, the said Pearl Ceiga, the sum of thirty ($30.00) dollars per month, which sum shall be paid on the 15th day of each and every month, commencing on the 15th day of May, 1937, such payments to continue so long as the said Pearl Ceiga remains unmarried, and said payment to be made at her home wherever she may reside, or at such place as she shall direct from time to time.

“This Agreement is made as aforesaid, based upon the assumption that a divorce will be awarded.

“Dated and signed by the Parties hereto, the year and date hereinabove written.

Chas. A. Ceiga (Seal)

Mrs. Pearl Ceiga (Seal)

Thereafter, appellee failed to comply with the provisions of said contract with reference to the payments to be made to appellant. She brought suit on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Nichols v. Hensler
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 6 d2 Janeiro d2 1976
    ...for her support and maintenance.' Rariden v. Rariden, 33 Ind.App. 284, 285, 70 N.E. 398, 398 (1904); see also Ceiga v. Ceiga 114 Ind.App. 205, 210, 51 N.E.2d 493, 495 (1943); cf. Wallace v. Wallace, 123 Ind.App. 454, 464--465, 110 N.E.2d 514, 111 N.E.2d 90, 92 (1953). A second line of cases......
  • Woods, Matter of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 1 d3 Junho d3 1977
    ...of property directly to the spouse to be supported. See, e. g., Wellington, supra; White, supra; Stanford, supra; Ceiga v. Ceiga, 114 Ind.App. 205, 51 N.E.2d 493 (1943); McDaniel v. McDaniel, 245 Ind. 551, 201 N.E.2d 215 (1964); Boshonig v. Boshonig, 148 Ind.App. 496, 267 N.E.2d 555 (1971).......
  • Widmer v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 11527-78
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 22 d1 Dezembro d1 1980
    ...for her support and maintenance.” Rariden v. Rariden, 33 Ind. App. 284, 285, 70 N.E. 398, 398 (1904); see also Ceiga v. Ceiga, 114 Ind.App. 205, 210, 51 N.E.2d 493, 495 (1943); cf. Wallace v. Wallace, 123 Ind.App. 454, 464-465, 110 N.E.2d 514, 111 N.E.2d 90, 92 (1953). A second line of case......
  • Ceiga v. Ceiga
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 2 d4 Dezembro d4 1943
    ...51 N.E.2d 493 114 Ind.App. 205 CEIGA v. CEIGA. No. 17137.Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.December 2, Roberts & Roberts, of Lowell, and George E. Hershman, of Crown Point, for appellant. Conroy & Glendening, of Hammond, and Louis J. Simbalmos, of East Chicago, for appellee. ROYSE, Presid......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT