Chorney v. Chorney
| Decision Date | 17 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3153,3153 |
| Citation | 383 P.2d 859 |
| Parties | Peggy Ann CHORNEY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Raymond CHORNEY, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Ernest Wilkerson, Casper, for appellant.
Brown, Healy, Drew, Apostolos & Barton and William H. Brown, Casper, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY, and McINTYRE, JJ.
Claiming that plaintiff, under the provisions of an agreement between the parties and a divorce decree, was in default of payment for support of a minor child, defendant commenced this contempt proceeding. At the hearing on the show cause order no testimony was proffered and the matter appears to have been submitted on affidavits, the answer of plaintiff, and certain exhibits attached thereto. From an adverse judgment defendant appeals.
From the record it appears that under date of August 27, 1959, the parties entered into an agreement to settle and compromise their respective claims each against the other, including provisions for custody and support of minor children. We are concerned here only with the matter of support payments for Frances and Judith, daughters of defendant and adopted by plaintiff, and who were at the time of the divorce approximately 20 years and 18 years of age respectively. Among other things, the agreement provided for payment of the sum of $125 per month by plaintiff to defendant for support of each of said children, said payments to terminate as to either when she reached majority, married, or became self-supporting. Defendant agreed to supervise expenditure of the support money and further agreed to indemnify plaintiff against the imposition of any additional payment for support, maintenance, and education of the daughters.
The said agreement was found to be reasonable and just in all respects by the trial court, and by reference was made a part of the decree.
The dispute here was prompted by the secret marriage of Frances on October 10, 1959, some forty-four days after the decree. It appears that neither plaintiff nor defendant obtained knowledge of the marriage until June 1960 and during that period plaintiff paid to defendant each month the sum of $250 for support of said children. However, following the month of June 1960, plaintiff reduced the support payment to $125 per month and continued to pay said amount to defendant up to and including the month of September 1961, and thereupon ceased to make further payment. Plaintiff claimed that the cessation was justified for the reason that Judith would reach majority within eight months and his support obligation for that period under the agreement and the decree had already been satisfied by payment to defendant of the sum of $1,000 which he was not obligated to pay.
Defendant takes the position that under the decree plaintiff was obligated to pay to each of the daughters the sum of $125 per month during eligibility and therefore plaintiff was duty-bound to pay to Judith the sum of $1,000 notwithstanding the overpayment of such amount to defendant on behalf of Frances or that, in any event, and regardless of the decree, such sum was due from plaintiff as a common-law obligation to support Judith.
The trial court, after reminding that the action was not one by Judith to enforce payment, rejected defendant's contentions and concluded that plaintiff's obligation was to pay defendant, not the children, the amounts specified; and having done so, plaintiff had complied fully with the agreement and the decree. Further, that it was defendant's sole responsibility properly to disburse the funds. We agree and there is no merit in this appeal.
It has long been the rule here that determination of the matter of custody and support of minor children involved in a divorce proceeding between the parents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorr v. Newman
...770 P.2d 227 (Wyo.1989); Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894 (Wyo.1986); Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, 677 P.2d 814, 820 (Wyo.1984); Chorney v. Chorney, 383 P.2d 859 (Wyo.1963). With alimony modification proper, if appropriate, we next face three technical questions. Was that remedy properly requested?......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...the intent of the parties in written agreements of the parties unless otherwise excusable by different legal principles. Chorney v. Chorney, Wyo., 383 P.2d 859 (1963). See Hurd v. Nelson, Wyo., 714 P.2d 767 (1986). Cf. McMillan v. McMillan, supra. Determinative in this case is the phrase in......
-
Redman v. Redman, 4292
...24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 855, p. 970, citing Jones v. Jones, 63 App.D.C. 373, 72 F.2d 829, 95 A.L.R. 352. Chorney v. Chorney (Wyo.1963), 383 P.2d 859, the only other authority cited by plaintiff, is of no assistance in this case because the decree itself provided that the oblig......
-
Grosskopf v. Grosskopf
...also is a matter addressed to the discretion of the court and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a clear abuse. Chorney v. Chorney, Wyo., 383 P.2d 859 (1963). Considering all of the facts and circumstances of this case, the merits of the parties, their respective educations, college......