Fangrow v. Fangrow, 41357
| Citation | 341 P.2d 998,185 Kan. 227 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41357,41357 |
| Parties | Frances E. FANGROW, Appellant, v. Fredrick Franklin FANGROW, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court.
The record in a proceeding to enforce collection of due and unpaid installments decreed in a divorce action for the support of minor children of a marriage, examined and held: Upon appeal to the supreme court the burden is upon the appellant to make it affirmatively appear error was committed in the court below, and plaintiff failed to sustain that burden in contending the district court erred in quashing an execution levied upon real estate and setting aside a sheriff's sale thereunder.
Chas. F. Burkin, Jr., Kansas City, argued the cause, and was on the briefs for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order quashing an execution levied upon real estate and setting aside the sale thereunder.
On March 5, 1954, in a divorce proceeding in the district court of Wyandotte county, plaintiff Frances E. Fangrow was granted a divorce from defendant Fredrick Franklin Fangrow, and was awarded the custody of two minor children of the marriage. The decree settled the property rights of the parties, and provided that defendant pay the sum of $15 per week for the support of the minor children. Plaintiff was awarded certain real estate in Johnson county and the household goods as 'her sole and separate property, free and clear of any right or claim of the defendant.' The remainder of the real property consisting of two tracts of real estate in Wyandotte county was set aside to the defendant as 'his sole and separate property, free and clear of any right or claim of the plaintiff.' The decree further provided that defendant pay plaintiff's attorney, as and for attorney's fee, the sum of $150.
The defendant paid nothing on the child support installments as required by the decree, and the attorney's fee was never paid.
Several proceedings in contempt were had and garnishment summons was issued and served on tenants of the defendant occupying one of the tracts of real estate set over to him by the decree, which is the real estate involved in this appeal.
On April 8, 1957, approximately two weeks after the garnishment summons was issued and served, the defendant conveyed the real estate involved in this appeal to his daughter by a previous marriage, Daisy B. Link, and her husband Charles Link, in joint tenancy by warranty deed, which was filed of record in Wyandotte county May 9, 1957.
On October 1, 1957, praecipe was filed by plaintiff directing that execution be issued against the real estate in question. On the same day, an execution was issued reciting a judgment against the defendant for due and unpaid child support installments in the amount of $2,955, $150 attorney's fees, costs of suit in the amount of $26.40 and accruing costs, describing the real estate in question, and commanding the sheriff, for want of goods and chattels of the defendant, to levy upon the real estate described.
The sheriff levied the writ of execution upon the real estate; notice of sale under the execution levy was duly made according to law, and on November 19, 1957, the sheriff, at a sheriff's sale and pursuant to the execution, sold the real estate described therein to Claude L. Higgins for the sum of $280.24, the proceeds of which were distributed by the clerk of the district court as follows: $222.62 for ad valorem taxes due and unpaid, and after a distribution of the balance for costs, a deficiency of $3,105 remained unpaid on the judgment of the plaintiff.
On November 26, 1957, Daisy B. and Charles Link filed a motion to quash the execution and to set aside the sheriff's sale for the reason that they were, at the time of the levy of the execution and sale of the real estate, the fee title owners of record thereof; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slade v. Slade
...vested when due and unpaid, and the statute of limitations begins to run on that installment at the moment it vests. Fangrow v. Fangrow, 185 Kan. 227, 341 P.2d 998 (1959); Peters v. Weber, 175 Kan. 838, 267 P.2d 481 (1954); Leonard v. Kleitz, supra. Compare: In re Coe's Estate, 56 N.M. 578,......
-
Miller v. Braun, 44323
...to affirmatively show that prejudicial error was committed. (Quick, Receiver v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626; Fangrow v. Fangrow, 185 Kan. 227, 341 P.2d 998.) Likewise, the rule of this court applicable here is that while the law guarantees to every litigant a fair trial, it does not......
-
Brieger v. Brieger, 44581
...Trunkey v. Johnson, supra; Haynes v. Haynes, 168 Kan. 219, 212 P.2s 312; Andrews v. Andrews, 171 Kan. 616, 237 P.2d 418; Fangrow v. Fangrow, 185 Kan. 227, 341 P.2d 998; Hains v. Hains, 187 Kan. 379, 357 P.2d Thus, in determining what, if any, judgment liens existed against the Wilson County......
-
Strecker v. Wilkinson
...as other judgments. (Riney v. Riney, 205 Kan. 671, 473 P.2d 77; Sharp v. Sharp, 154 Kan. 175, 117 P.2d 561.) In Fangrow v. Fangrow, 185 Kan. 227, 341 P.2d 998, we '. . . Furthermore, when payment of child support is ordered to be made in installments, a final judgment results as each instal......