Johnson v. Johnson, 157

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Citation216 A.2d 914,241 Md. 416
Docket NumberNo. 157,157
PartiesGilbert M. JOHNSON v. Eleanor R. JOHNSON.
Decision Date15 February 1966

Page 416

241 Md. 416
216 A.2d 914
Gilbert M. JOHNSON
v.
Eleanor R. JOHNSON.
No. 157.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Feb. 15, 1966.

Page 417

[216 A.2d 915] Thomas L. Hennessey, Towson, for appellant.

Donald T. A. Fair, Baltimore (Edward S. Vidali and Fair, Vidali, Wagner & Evering, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellee.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

The question posed by this appeal is whether, under the circumstances of this case, a father, charged with the support of his children, should have been imprisoned until he purged himself of contempt for failure to pay in full the arrearages that had accumulated over a period of several years.

When the father was divorced from the mother of their three children on October 19, 1961, he was ordered to pay the mother fifty dollars a week for the support of the children. Although he complied with the order for about twenty months, he thereafter began decreasing the weekly payments until he was paying only twenty-five dollars a week. As a consequence, the arrearages became progressively greater. This, in part at least, was attributable to the fact that his net weekly income had been reduced to approximately eighty-four dollars a week. The salary he received was his only source of income other than the rents from a double house he owned but operated at a loss due to its location and condition.

During the period the arrearages were accumulating, the mother, besides seeking an increase in the amount of payments from time to time, filed several petitions for attachment of the father for failure to make the payments as stipulated, and he, in turn, filed several petitions for a reduction in the amount

Page 418

of the support payments. The court, however, despite repeated requests therefor, would not consider a reduction in the weekly payments to an amount the father could reasonably pay.

[216 A.2d 916] At a hearing on October 7, 1963, when the arrearages were $380, the lower court dismissed all pending petitions. Thereafter, the arrearages having increased to $1160, the court, at another hearing on June 15, 1964, on new petitions for attachment and reduction of payments filed on the interim, denied a request for reduction and found the father guilty of contempt, but held the matter in abeyance. On this occasion, the father, accepting a suggestion the court made, promised to sell the double house in order to pay the arrearages. Apparently because the promise had not been promptly complied with, a third hearing was held on October 9, 1964. Thereat, the father agreed to reduce the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Rutherford v. Rutherford, 104
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • August 5, 1983
    ...and Scholl, supra, 267 Md. at 728 [298 A.2d 867]; McDaniel v. McDaniel, supra, 256 Md. at 689-690, 692 [262 A.2d 52]; Johnson v. Johnson, 241 Md. 416, 419-420, 216 A.2d 914 (1966). The 'choice' must be the defendant's 'as to whether [he can] comply.' Williams and Fulwood v. Director, supra,......
  • Walter v. Gunter, 41
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • January 9, 2002
    ...Rand v. Rand, 280 Md. 508, 510, 374 A.2d 900, 902 (1977); Speckler v. Speckler, 256 Md. 635, 637, 261 A.2d 466, 467; Johnson v. Johnson, 241 Md. 416, 419, 216 A.2d 914, 916 (1966); Bradford v. Futrell, 225 Md. 512, 518, 171 A.2d 493, 496, (1961); McCabe v. McCabe, 788 A.2d 624 210 Md. 308, ......
  • Aronson v. Aronson, 944
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 2, 1997
    ...show that he is unable to satisfy the purge provision. See Rutherford v. Rutherford, 296 Md. 347, 464 A.2d 228 (1983); Johnson v. Johnson, 241 Md. 416, 216 A.2d 914 (1966). Appellant had the burden of showing that he could not do so. McDaniel v. McDaniel, 256 Md. 684, 262 A.2d 52 (1970). Th......
  • Middleton v. Middleton, 36
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1992
    ...Rand v. Rand, 280 Md. 508, 510, 374 A.2d 900, 902 (1977); Speckler v. Speckler, 256 Md. 635, 637, 261 A.2d 466, 467; Johnson v. Johnson, 241 Md. 416, 419, 216 A.2d 914, 916 (1966); Bradford v. Futrell, 225 Md. 512, 518, 171 A.2d 493, 496, (1961); McCabe v. McCabe, 210 Md. 308, 314, 123 A.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT