Evans v. Evans

• Decision Date: 29 July 1921
• Docket Number: 16465.
• Citation: Evans v. Evans, 116 Wash. 460, 199 P. 764 (Wash. 1921)
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: EVANS v. EVANS.

199 P. 764

116 Wash. 460

EVANS v. EVANS.

No. 16465.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 29, 1921

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey, Judge.

Action by Meta Morris Evans against George Washington Evans. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

James B. Kinne, of Seattle, for appellant.

MAIN J.

The purpose of this action was to recover alimony claimed to be due and unpaid, and the action is based upon a decree of the circuit court of the state of Illinois. The trial resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment denying recovery. The plaintiff appeals.

The parties were divorced on the 21st day of December, 1900, by decree of the circuit court for Cook county Ill. At this time there were two minor children, the custody of whom was awarded to the mother, the appellant here. Covering the matter of alimony and the maintenance and education of the children the decree contained the following provision:

'That the complainant have and recover from the defendant, George Washington Evans, the sum of $60.00 per month from the date hereof and that the defendant pay the said sum of $60.00 per month from date hereof for the support, maintenance and education of said children, Meta Morris Evans and George Chambliss Evans, and for her own support and maintenance, which monthly sum shall became due and payable on or before the 15th day of the month for which the same is due.'

The oldest child attained the age of majority on March 18, 1911. The present action was instituted on April 12, 1911, and at that time it was claimed that there was due and unpaid, under the terms of the decree, the sum of $2,160. The action did not come on for trial until May 27, 1920. Between the time when the complaint was filed and the date of the trial a number of supplemental complaints were filed covering the amount which it was claimed was accruing from time to time under the decree. There is some dispute in the evidence as to whether anything was owing and unpaid at the time the action was instituted. The evidence, however, makes it reasonably clear that the respondent at the time the action was begun had paid all the sums which had accrued under the divorce decree up to the time that the oldest child became of age. The evidence upon this question is such that it leaves little room for controversy.

The question in the case is whether the respondent had the right to recover under the decree the amount there specified after one of the children, or both, had reached the age of majority. From the excerpt from the decree above quoted it appears that the respondent was required to pay $60 per month to the appellant for the 'maintenance and education of said children, Meta Morris Evans and George Chambliss Evans, and for her own support and maintenance.' The decree does not segregate the amount which was intended for the maintenance and education of the children or either of them from the amount which was intended for...