Gutowski v. Gutowski, 132.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 132.,132. |
| Parties | GUTOWSKI v. GUTOWSKI. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Arthur Webster, Judge.
Action by Marie Gutowski against Arthur Gutowski, also known as Arthur J. Gutow. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
J. H. M. Alexander, of Detroit, for appellant.
Stewart R. Boyer, of Detroit, for appellee.
On May 17, 1921, the superior court of Cook county, Ill., granted a decree of divorce to Marie Gutowski against Arthur Gutowski, also known as Arthur J. Gutow, ordering him to pay the sum of $30 each and every week, until further order of the court, as alimony for the support of herself and minor child. Plaintiff brought the instant suit to recover installments, due under the decree, in Wayne county, Mich., of which defendant had become a resident. At the time of the trial, plaintiff limited her claim to $2,180, constituting alimony at $30 a week for the period of slightly over the 72 weeks just prior to June 15, 1931, when the present suit was begun. She recovered a judgment for this amount and costs.
Defendant contends that plaintiff is precluded from bringing this suit because it was not instituted until more than 10 years after the date of the original decree. This claim is not tenable. A decree of divorce does not become outlawed in 10 years. The delinquent installments of the alimony, for which judgment was rendered in the lower court, all accrued within 2 years prior to the beginning of the present suit, and therefore were not outlawed. The reasoning in the case of Buzzn v. Muncey Cartage Co., 248 Mich. 64, 226 N. W. 836, is controlling here.
Defendant further claims that, before the trial court could give effect to a decree of the Illinois court, it was necessary for the plaintiff to present an order from the latter tribunal adjudging the amount due under its original decree. This was unnecessary. The decree of the Illinois court was complete and final, and is entitled to full faith and credit by the courts of this state. Defendant contends that the original order of alimony may have been modified by the court which granted it. He, however, produced no evidence to that effect. His rights were fully protected by the judgment rendered, accompanied by a stay of 60 days in accordance with sections 12771, 12772, C. L. 1929, which provide for the bringing of an action at law on a decree for alimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huggins v. Deinhard, 1
...Nor is this rule changed simply because the rendering state has not adjudicated the amount due under its decree. Gutowski v. Gutowski, 266 Mich. 1, 253 N.W. 192 (1934). Justice Traynor set forth the following concise statement of the law in Biewend v. Biewend, supra at An order for the paym......
-
Rybinski v. Rybinski, 21
...approval of this view. Dewey v. Dewey, 151 Mich. 586, 115 N.W. 735; Kaiser v. Kaiser, 213 Mich. 660, 181 N.W. 993; Gutowski v. Gutowski, 266 Mich. 1, 253 N.W. 192; and Sullivan v. Sullivan, 300 Mich. 640, 2 N.W.2d 799. See, also, authorities annotated in 137 A.L.R. 890. An action founded up......
- Van Dellen v. Castetter, 67.
-
Stubbs v. Stubbs
...is to provide a remedy under the law of this State for monies adjudicated as due in proceedings in a sister State. In Gutowski v. Gutowski, 266 Mich. 1, 253 N.W. 192, we held that under the above act, a decree of divorce rendered in another State awarding alimony is complete and final and i......