Ferguson v. Ferguson, s. 63716
| Decision Date | 02 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 63716,63760 and 63784,s. 63716 |
| Citation | 636 S.W.2d 323 |
| Parties | Clifford R. FERGUSON, Respondent, v. Zora P. FERGUSON, Appellant. Hannah R. NIEDORF, Appellant, v. Saul NIEDORF, Respondent. Marie FLYNN f/k/a Marie DeSantis, Respondent, v. Andreino DeSANTIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Richard E. Duggan, Kansas City, for Zora P. Ferguson.
Alan E. South, Kansas City, for Clifford R. Ferguson.
Allan F. Stewart, Clayton, for Hannah R. Niedorf.
Charles R. Oldham, Anne Maloney, St. Louis, for Saul Niedorf.
Blair Drazic, St. Louis, for Andreino DeSantis.
Elizabeth C. Kennedy, St. Louis, for Marie Flynn.
In Ferguson v. Ferguson, the western district, after opinion, ordered the cause transferred to this Court because of an apparent conflict with its opinion and both the eastern district cases of Pourney v. Seabaugh, 604 S.W.2d 646 (Mo.App.1980), and Swan v. Shelton, 469 S.W.2d 943 (Mo.App.1971), and this Court's opinions in Northwestern Brewers Supply Co. v. Vorhees, 356 Mo. 699, 203 S.W.2d 422 (1947), and Wormington v. City of Monett, 358 Mo. 1044, 218 S.W.2d 586 (banc 1949).
The eastern district in Niedorf v. Niedorf and Flynn v. DeSantis noted the apparent conflicts, and because Ferguson had been previously transferred to this Court, ordered those two cases transferred here as well.
The issue in these cases of the applicability and effect of § 516.350, RSMo 1978, to periodic payments incident to dissolution has been decided recently in Holt v. Holt, 635 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. banc 1982).
Section 516.350, RSMo 1978, declared that judgments were conclusively presumed paid ten years after original rendition absent some exception found in the statute that would extend the time period. In 1982 the legislature amended § 516.350, RSMo 1978 by reenacting the former statute as section 1 and adding one additional section-section 2. (S.B. 468-81st General Assembly Second Regular Session). In view of the legislative reenactment, the clear intent of the general assembly expressed in the reenacted subsection 1 was to require either a revival "upon personal service duly had upon the defendant or defendants therein," or a payment made on the judgment "and duly entered upon the record thereof" in order to revive the judgment and extend the time period past "the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition" of the judgment under that subsection.
Subsection 2 represents the legislative attempt to ameliorate the harshness of and hardships...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. Foley, WD
...on June 22, 1982, and had no qualms in affording the appellant therein "the benefit of the new law". It should be noted that Ferguson v. Ferguson, 636 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. en banc, 1982), followed Holt v. Holt, supra, and, additionally, resolved an apparent conflict between decisions of the Miss......
-
Coleman v. Coleman, 58745
...that this action under the terms of the revised statute satisfies the statutory requirement of renewing the action. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 636 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo. banc 1982). Husband, however, argues that the renewal in May, 1986, entitles wife to missed payments only back to the effective ......
-
Sparks v. Trantham
...2 was enacted as "the legislative attempt to ameliorate the harshness of and hardships created by former § 516.350...." Ferguson v. Ferguson, 636 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo. banc 1982). In Ferguson, the supreme court made it clear that each periodic child-support payment has its separate ten-year ......
- State v. Reasonover, 47807