Johnson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 10 March 1941
• Docket Number: 15228.
• Citation: 13 S.E.2d 593,196 S.C. 474
• Parties: JOHNSON v. JOHNSON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

13 S.E.2d 593

196 S.C. 474

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON.

No. 15228.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 10, 1941

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Wm. H Grimball, Judge.

Action by Dorothy N. Johnson against Emmett Johnson, Jr., to recover alimony granted by a foreign court in a divorce action. The defendant obtained a rule requiring plaintiff to show cause why the amount ordered to be paid should not be reduced on account of changed financial condition of defendant, and plaintiff obtained a rule requiring defendant to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court for failure to make the required monthly payments. From an order referring the matter to a master in equity to take testimony and to report to the court his findings of fact and law plaintiff appeals .

S Henry Edmunds, of Charleston, for appellant.

Paul M. Macmillan, of Charleston, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

This case was with us once before. Johnson v. Johnson, 194 S.C. 115, 8 S.E.2d 351. In the former appeal we held that a decree for alimony granted by a Florida Court may be established in this State as a local judgment and enforced by equitable remedies, such as contempt proceedings against the defendant for failure to comply with the judgment or the Court, in such manner as is customary in the enforcement of domestic decrees for alimony by and through the equity Courts of this State. Subsequent to the decision in the above case the Circuit Court of Charleston County, through proper proceedings, took cognizance of the alimony decree rendered by the Florida Court, and established it as a local judgment, holding that such decree was final, not only as to all accrued and past-due monthly installments, but also as to all installments of alimony to become due and payable in the future. From this judgment of the Circuit Court there was no appeal.

Thereafter, upon petition of the defendant, Emmett Johnson, Jr., the Circuit Court issued a rule requiring the plaintiff, Dorothy N. Johnson, to show cause why the amounts ordered to be paid by the defendant for the support and maintenance of the plaintiff and her child should not be reduced because of the changed financial condition of the defendant. The plaintiff made return, and upon the same day a rule was made returnable directed to the respondent to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of Court for his failure to make payments of monthly installments which had accrued and which were past due. To this rule the defendant duly made return. The two rules were heard together, and resulted in an order of the Court referring the whole matter to the master in equity for Charleston County to take testimony upon the question of defendant's changed financial status; the master to report to the Court his findings of fact and law, and any other special matter.

Dorothy N. Johnson has appealed from this order, and seeks its reversal upon the ground that the Circuit Court has no power under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution to modify or alter the provisions of the decree issued by the Florida Court, either as to past-due installments or future installments of alimony. The contention is made that application for such relief must first be made in the state where the decree was originally rendered. With this general position we are in full accord, but it does not fully comprise or reflect the primary issue which was before the lower Court. The real question before that Court had to do with the method of enforcement to be followed, and not with the modification of the decree.

There is no adjudged case in this State which specifically passes upon the question before us. We have held, however, that with reference to the enforcement of a domestic decree for alimony a Court of equity has the right and power to make such changes in the amount of alimony originally granted for the wife's support as the altered circumstances of the parties show to be equitable and necessary. Jeter v. Jeter, 193 S.C. 278, 8 S.E.2d 490. The plaintiff in argument stresses the general rule that a judgment rendered by a Court of one state is, under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, entitled in the Courts of another state of the Union to full force and effect. We, of course, adhere to this doctrine. Alexander v. Alexander, 164 S.C. 466, 162 S.E. 437, 82 A.L.R. 719; Scheper v. Scheper, 125 S.C. 89, 118 S.E. 178; 31 Am.Jur., § 533, p. 141.

While the Federal Constitution places judgments of sister states on the same footing in most respects as domestic judgments, and grants them a general faith and credit, it is clear that when the issue has to do with the method of enforcement no greater effect need be given to an alimony decree of a sister state than is given to similar judgments in the state where such foreign judgment may be established. 31 Am.Jur., § 533, p. 144. The plaintiff insists that if the order of reference stands, which allows defendant to offer evidence showing his altered financial condition and his inability to pay the full amount of monthly installments, past and future, it would constitute a denial of full faith and credit, because in effect the Court would thereby assume jurisdiction to modify the Florida decree. We do not think so under the circumstances of this case.

Under the decree for alimony rendered by the Florida Court, ...