Coleman v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 20 September 1950 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 50M3 |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. COLEMAN. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Kenneth E. Pearce, Carmi, Curtis E. Hill, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Townsend & Townsend, Mt. Carmel, for appellee.
On August 6, 1948, the Circuit Court of Wabash County entered a decree granting a divorce to the plaintiff against defendant. Plaintiff and defendant had previously entered into a property settlement and alimony agreement a copy of which was attached to and made a part of the final decree. The final decree then ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff alimony in the sum of $12,000, payable in installments as follows: $1,000 within ten days from the entry of the decree and $500 upon the first day of January and the first day of July of each year thereafter, beginning in the year 1949, up to and including July 1, 1959. On September 18, 1948, the plaintiff was married to one R. T. Ray. On June 17, 1949, the defendant filed his petition to modify the decree alleging the marriage of the plaintiff and asking that all future payments provided for by the decree be cancelled. Plaintiff filed an answer to the petition and thereafter an amended answer and defendant filed a reply. The case was heard by the Court and the Court granted the prayer of the petition and ordered that the former decree of divorce be modified to the extent that the defendant be relieved and discharged from any and all liability to make payments of alimony required in the said decree. From this order, plaintiff brings her appeal to this Court.
Plaintiff's principal contention is that the amounts required to be paid by the defendant in pursuance to said decree and property and alimony settlement represented property settlement and not alimony, and, therefore, did not come within the purview of Section 18 of the Divorce Act which provides that a party shall not be entitled to alimony after remarriage.
The agreement between the parties which became attached to and merged in the decree, by its paragraphs numbered one to seven, inclusive, and numbers nine and ten, provided for certain disposition of property rights, including the personal belongings of the wife, a certain insurance policy, a sale to the husband of the wife's interest in some pop corn machines, and an agreement as to the payment of income taxes and division of a bank account as between the husband and wife. Paragraph 9 provided for the release and relinquishment by the plaintiff of certain property and paragraph 10 provided that in consideration of the execution of the agreement each of the parties waived all right, title, and interest in and to all property of the other party, both real and personal, and waived and released to each other any and all further claims or rights to support or maintenance.
Paragraph 8 of the agreement reads as follows: 'The Husband will pay to the Wife, as alimony, the sum of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00), the same to be payable in installments as follows: One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in the year 1948 and within ten days from the entry of any decree granting a divorce to the Wife in the cause hereinbefore mentioned, and Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) upon the first day of January and a like sum on the first day of July of each year hereafter, beginning with the year 1949, up to and including July 1, 1959.'
Paragraph 11 of the agreement is as follows:
Paragraph 12 of the agreement provided that the agreement was executed in triplicate and should be binding upon the heirs, administrators, and executors of the parties. The agreement was entitled 'Property Settlement and Alimony Agreement.' The decree of divorce entered by the Court included the following provisions which were material to the agreement entered into between the parties:
Par. 6 'The court further finds that a Property Settlement and Alimony Agreement has been entered into between the parties hereto which is fair, reasonable and proper, a copy of said Agreement being attached to this decree and made a part hereof.'
Par. (b) 'That the Property Settlement and Alimony Agreement attached to and made a part of this decree and entered into between the parties hereto be and the same is confirmed.'
Par. (f) 'In accordance with said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK v. United States
...213, as to separate provisions one legal the other illegal of a separable contract. Defendant cites the cases of Coleman v. Coleman, 341 Ill.App. 462, 94 N.E.2d 507, and Bailey v. Bailey, 157 Ill.App. 74, as holding to the contrary on the public policy of Illinois. In the Coleman case the c......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...has been uniformly applied. See Adler v. Adler, supra; Balasa v. Balasa, 11 Ill.App.2d 103, 136 N.E.2d 594 (1956); Coleman v. Coleman, 341 Ill.App. 462, 94 N.E.2d 507 (1950). In Banck v. Banck, 322 Ill.App. 369, 54 N.E.2d 577 (1944) and Hotzfield v. Hotzfield, 336 Ill.App. 238, 83 N.E.2d 60......
-
Gouthro v. Winstanley
...has been followed frequently in other cases by our Supreme and Appellate Courts.' Respondent relies heavily upon Coleman v. Coleman, 341 Ill.App. 462, 94 N.E.2d 507, 509, a case which is persuasive. There the plaintiff was ararded alimony in the sum of $12,000 payable $1,000 within ten days......