Jenner v. Jenner, 18152
| Citation | 138 Colo. 149,330 P.2d 544 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 18152,18152 |
| Parties | Rudolph S. JENNER, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carolyn H. JENNER, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Robert E. Cole, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Creamer & Creamer, Denver, for defendant in error.
The parties hereto appeared in the trial court in inverse order of their appearance in this court. We will refer to plaintiff in error as the husband and the defendant in error as the wife.
The wife instituted a divorce action against her husband which proceeded as a non-contested case, resulting in a decree in favor of the wife. The husband was ordered to pay $50 per month for the support of the minor child of the parties, together with $20.67 per month to the wife for the purpose of paying premiums on certain life insurance policies.
The husband failed to make the payments provided for in the decree and was cited for contempt. In May, 1950 the trial court reduced the amount to be paid for the child's support to $40 per month, determining at that time that the husband was in arrears in the sum of $1,018.09, and ordered that the arrearage need not be paid prior to May 10, 1951. All in accordance with a stipulation of the parties.
Nothing was paid and in August, 1956 the wife had judgment entered against the husband for the arrearage of $1,018.09, which judgment was made a lien upon certain property of the husband, and the latter thereupon moved to vacate the judgment. The husband admitted 'that on or about the 10th day of May, 1950 the court above mentioned had entered a finding that the defendant [husband] was in arrears in his support payments in the amount of $1,018.09'. It was claimed that the wife should be barred on the ground of laches. The motion to vacate the judgment was denied and the husband brings the case here on writ of error.
Inasmuch as this case is governed by the rule in Burke v. Burke, 127 Colo. 257, 255 P.2d 740, 742, we decline to pass on the procedural questions incident to this writ of error raised by counsel for the wife.
In Burke v. Burke, this court said:
'* * * the husband was not prejudiced by the entering of judgment for the correct total amount due under the decree. 'Each installment which matures under a decree which had not been modified becomes a judgment debt similar to any other judgment for money. The original decree is final in character with respect to each matured installment and so cannot be challenged here and should not be challenged elsewhere. Execution may issue upon it. It is therefore unnecessary to seek in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kann
...or child support awards. See Hauck v. Schuck , 143 Colo. 324, 327, 353 P.2d 79, 81 (1960) (child support); Jenner v. Jenner , 138 Colo. 149, 151, 330 P.2d 544, 545 (1958) (combined support); Hamilton v. Hamilton , 104 Colo. 615, 618-19, 94 P.2d 127, 128 (1939) (same); Price v. Price , 80 Co......
-
Kann v. Kann, Court of Appeals No. 16CA0259
...or child support awards. See Hauck v. Schuck, 143 Colo. 324, 327, 353 P.2d 79, 81 (1960) (child support); Jenner v. Jenner, 138 Colo. 149, 151, 330 P.2d 544, 545 (1958) (combined support); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 104 Colo. 615, 618-19, 94 P.2d 127, 128 (1939) (same); Price v. Price, 80 Colo. ......
-
Allingham v. Allingham
...to refuse sole or concurring jurisdiction because of a continuing jurisdiction elsewhere. * * *' This Court has held in Jenner v. Jenner, 138 Colo. 149, 330 P.2d 544, that a judgment as to sums accrued may be obtained without notice to defendant. The Court, in the Jenner case, relied on Bur......
-
In re Davidson
...be with any other judgment, and is not modifiable for any reason. Burke v. Burke, 127 Colo. 257, 255 P.2d 740 (1953); Jenner v. Jenner, 138 Colo. 149, 330 P.2d 544 (1958); Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. 299, 358 P.2d 864 (1961); In re Marriage of Walsh, 44 Colo.App. 502, 614 P.2d 913 (1980......