Gard v. Gard
Decision Date | 11 July 1951 |
Docket Number | No. A-3168,A-3168 |
Citation | 241 S.W.2d 618,150 Tex. 347 |
Parties | GARD v. GARD. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Mae M. Ament, Alpine, for petitioner.
Alfred E. Creigh, Jr., Alpine, for respondent.
On August 7, 1936, petitioner, Lucile W. Gard, got a divorce from respondent, James Arthur Gard, in a district court in Idaho, where both parties then lived. Awarding custody of their two minor children to petitioner, the judgment provided:
The younger child became 18 years old on March 2, 1946.
Respondent made full payment under the judgment for the months of September, October and November, 1936, and partial payments for nine subsequent months, the last being $15 paid in December, 1937. These payments totaled $225.
During the summer of 1938 respondent left Idaho and came to Texas, where he has since continuously resided.
On June 30, 1947, petitioner, still a resident of Idaho, filed this suit against respondent in the District Court of Brewster County, Texas, where he then resided, alleging that he was indebted to her in the sum of $3,285 being the amounts due her under the Idaho judgment from its date until March 2, 1946, after crediting the $225 which he had paid as above stated.
A district court judgment for that amount was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals and the cause remanded. 239 S.W.2d 410, 411.
The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the Idaho judgment ceased to be operative on March 2, 1946, when the youngest child became 18 years old; that prior to that date petitioner had a cause of action for the delinquent payments 'for the purposes for which awarded but not otherwise'; that, that date having passed, petitioner's only maintainable cause of action is for debt for whatever amounts she actually expended or otherwise supplied for necessaries which respondent may have failed to supply to the children; that
That holding is contrary to the requirement of Art. IV, Sec. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the judicial proceedings of every other state.
Under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Idaho, petitioner's judgment in that state was as final as any judgment for debt could be, although it was subject to later modification, as to installments not matured, for changed conditions upon application of either party. Simonton v. Simonton, 33 Idaho 255, 193 P. 386; Simpson v. Simpson, 51 Idaho 99, 4 P.2d 345, 347. In the latter case the movant sought to have the trial court modify a previous divorce judgment by reducing the alimony and support money therein decreed from $85 to $25 per month. The trial court not only granted that relief but reduced the sum of $170 which he was in arrears to $56.25. The Supreme Court held that the reduction was beyond the power of the trial court to decree, because 'the power to modify such installments is prospective and not retroactive'; that the order for alimony and support money was not interlocutory but was a final judgment as to installments actually accrued, citing Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 682, 686, 54 L.Ed. 905.
In the Sistare case, supra, it is said that 'generally speaking, where a decree is...
To continue reading
Request your trial