Goodwin v. Goodwin, 22074

• Decision Date: 07 February 1955
• Docket Number: No. 22074,22074
• Parties: Marion F. GOODWIN, Respondent, v. Lawrence M. GOODWIN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 850

277 S.W.2d 850

Marion F. GOODWIN, Respondent, v. Lawrence M. GOODWIN, Appellant.

No. 22074.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 7, 1955.

Randolph P. Rogers, Jr., Martin J. Purcell, James C. Mordy, Morrison, Hecker, Buck, Cozad & Rogers, Kansas City, for appellant.

Roy P. Swanson, Richard G. Poland, Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley, Kansas City, for respondent.

SPERRY, Commissioner.

Plaintiff, Marion F. Goodwin, and defendant, Lawrence M. Goodwin, were divorced in the State of Connecticut, June 25, 1948. Plaintiff sued herein for a sum alleged to be due her as the balance of alimony for the year 1951. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, in the amount of $2,151.74, defendant appeals.

Plaintiff's petition is based on a written agreement entered into between her and defendant on July 26, 1950, duly signed and acknowledged by both parties, which agreement is filed as her Exhibit 'A' and made a part of her petition. Incorporated in said agreement and forming a part thereof is a 'Stipulation' between the parties, dated January 18, 1948, filed with the Connecticut divorce court. It was recited in the stipulation, in effect, that plaintiff herein had filed a suit for divorce against defendant; that, if plaintiff's petition be granted, she be given custody of their two minor children; and that 'defendant shall thenceforth pay to the plaintiff the sum of $200 per month as alimony and support for the minor children, and in addition, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony and support 25% of the amount by which his gross income shall exceed the sum of $6,000 per year.' The divorce was granted to plaintiff. She was awarded custody of the children, alimony of $100 per month, and $50 per month support for each of the children. The stipulation was approved but was not incorporated nor referred to in the divorce decree.

In the agreement sued on it was further recited that a dispute had arisen between the parties regarding interpretation of the terms of the stipulation, as to the manner by which defendant's 'gross income' should be determined. The parties agreed therein upon the method by which the amount due plaintiff on account of 'gross income' would be determined. That was the subject of the compromise agreement.

Thereafter, a further dispute arose between the parties as to the manner of determining defendant's 'gross income' for the year 1950. By an instrument dated July 16, 1951, this dispute was compromised and settled, and it was agreed that the $50 monthly payment for the support of a deceased child should not be paid to plaintiff from and after August, 1950. That instrument was pleaded in defendant's counterclaim, attached thereto, made a part thereof, and filed in this case, together with the answer and counterclaim. It was introduced and received into evidence without objection.

One of the children died August 8, 1950, prior to the filing in the Connecticut court of the 1950 agreement, on November 3, 1950. The other child reached majority in November, 1951.

It is plaintiff's contention, in the case at bar, that by the stipulation of January 18, 1948, as modified by the agreement of July 26, 1950, she is entitled to receive, for herself, as alimony and support for the year 1951, the sum of $100 per month, plus 25% of defendant's gross income. Defendant admits that he should pay plaintiff $100 per month, but claims that, since one child died August 8, 1950, and the other child reached majority in November of 1950, he is required to pay plaintiff only one-half of 25% of his gross income for the year 1951. Defendant has not paid the $100 monthly maintenance for the deceased child since her death, nor any sums for the other child since he reached majority, nor is any sum claimed by plaintiff, in this suit, on account of the children. The sole question at issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to receive 25% of defendant's gross income for the year 1951, notwithstanding the death of the one child and the majority of the other.

It is agreed that the amount of the judgment herein is correct if plaintiff is entitled to recover anything in this action.

Both parties hereto agree that the instrument sued on is clear and unambiguous, but each contends for a different construction. (An anomalous situation!) The gist of defendant's monetary obligation to plaintiff is stated in the stipulation signed by the parties on January 18, 1948. Defendant thereby agreed to pay plaintiff $200 thenceforth per month as alimony and support of the minor children '* * * and, in addition * * * shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony and...