Jaffe v. Jaffe, 33858.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 33858.,33858. |
| Citation | 182 N.W. 784 |
| Parties | JAFFE v. JAFFE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; J. W. Anderson, Judge.
“Not to be officially reported.”
The nature of the action and material facts are fully stated in the opinion. Affirmed.Farr & Farr and Jepson, Struble & Anderson, all of Sioux City, for appellant.
J. P. Shoup and Henderson, Fribourg & Hatfield, all of Sioux City, for appellee.
[1][2] Plaintiff and defendant were married May 31, 1896, and divorced January 3, 1913. The decree in the divorce action gave the custody of the three minor children of the parties to the plaintiff, and by stipulation, filed of record therein, the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $3,000 as alimony as follows: $300 on or before the signing of the decree, and $40 per month thereafter on the 15th day of each month until the full sum would be paid. These sums, with the possible exception of the final $40 payment, had been made at the time of the trial of the present case. On August 24, 1917, plaintiff filed a supplemental petition, entitled as in the divorce action, praying a further sum as alimony, and for the support of the two minor children, the oldest child having attained her majority. The court denied plaintiff's application for alimony, but required the defendant to make an initial payment of $250, and thereafter of $50 per month for the support of the minor children. The defendant contends that by the terms of the written stipulation settling alimony, plaintiff agreed to accept $3,000 in full therefor, and also for the support and maintenance of the minor children, and that by reason thereof he is released from further liability to the plaintiff for the support of said children. No question of alimony is involved upon this appeal. The only question is whether the settlement between the parties released defendant from the legal duty to contribute to the maintenance of his minor children. The order of the court provided that the payments be made to the plaintiff. Possibly, had the defendant requested it, the court would have made provision for the monthly payments, to be applied directly and exclusively to the benefit of the two minor children, instead of requiring the payments to be made to plaintiff, to be applied by her for that purpose. The defendant could not, by a stipulation of the character in question, relieve himself from the duty to support his minor children. It is true that whatever sums...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Bossart
-
Addy v. Addy
...105 N.W. 350. A father cannot be relieved from the duty to support his minor children by agreement of the mother. Jaffe v. Jaffe, Iowa, 182 N.W. 784;Edleson v. Edleson, 179 Ky. 300, 200 S.W. 625, 2 A.L.R. 689, 698;Myers v. Anderson, 145 Kan. 775, 67 P.2d 542; 2 Nelson Divorce and Annulment,......
-
Addy v. Addy
...'for the use and benefit of' the child. Actually the suit is for the child's benefit. Plaintiff asks nothing for herself. See Jaffe v. Jaffe, supra, 182 N.W. 784. Ordinarily an allowance for support of children should be payable to the mother to whose custody they have been awarded. 2 Nelso......