Josey v. Josey

Decision Date13 April 1926
Docket NumberCase Number: 16303,Case Number: 16607
Citation114 Okla. 224,1926 OK 353,245 P. 844
PartiesJOSEY v. JOSEY.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Divorce--Award of Custody of Children to Mother-- Father's Continuing Duty to Support. A divorce decree awarding custody of minor children to the mother does not destroy the relationship between the father and the children. The father's duty and liability to support remains the same as theretofore, except (1) in so far as he is incapacitated, (2) in so far as the decree discharges and releases him from any natural, legal, or statutory duty to support his children, and (3) in so far as it can be said in view of section 8035, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, that the support and maintenance rendered by the parent to whom custody has been awarded is voluntary, or without an agreement for compensation.

2. Same -- Validity of Order for Maintenance Made After Final Judgment. Under section 507, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, the court granting a decree of divorce and awarding custody of minor children to the plaintiff, has authority, after final judgment in the action, to enter an order providing for the maintenance and support of such children.

Gustave A. Erixon and Claude Weaver, for plaintiff in error.

Mike Foster and Hoyt & Stephens, for defendant in error.

RILEY, J.

¶1 In cause No. 16303, the appeal is based upon a conviction of indirect contempt of court in the failure of the plaintiff in error to pay support and maintenance for his minor children as he was ordered to do. In cause No. 16607, the appeal is from a judgment of like contempt growing out of the same matter, but of a later date, together with a refusal by the court to vacate the order of December 3, 1924, which was the basis of the contempt proceedings. The parties will be mentioned as they appeared below. Ina Pearl Josey filed her action for divorce from her husband, William C. B. Josey, on May 17, 1924, in the district court of Oklahoma county. She was granted a decree of divorce June 5, 1924, at the fault of the defendant. Upon application of plaintiff on December 31, 1924, and without further notice to defendant, and upon an ex parte hearing, the court issued an order requiring defendant to pay $ 15 per week for maintenance of his minor children, whose custody had theretofore been awarded plaintiff under the decree of divorce. The defendant failed and refused to obey this order. On motion of plaintiff, the court cited the defendant to answer the charge of contempt. The defendant demanded and secured a jury trial and on March 24, 1925, the jury rendered a verdict of guilty against him and the defendant was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

¶2 Forming the basis of cause No. 16607, on April 9, 1925, the defendant was again cited to answer a charge of contempt for a failure to obey the order of December 3, 1924, in his failure to pay maintenance and support for his minor children for a time subsequent to that upon which his first appeal lay. The defendant pleaded a lack of jurisdiction. This the court overruled. The defendant filed his petition in the court below to vacate the order of December 3, 1924, which was the support and maintenance order. By agreement the contempt charge and the petition to vacate the order of December 3, 1924, were consolidated and tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. Judgment in both matters was rendered against the defendant, and he was sentenced to jail for contempt. On appeal the causes were consolidated and both judgments were superseded.

¶3 It is first contended by the defendant that he and the plaintiff entered into a contract which was approved by the court in the divorce decree whereby the property rights of the parties were settled, and that such a status precluded the court from making such further order as it did on December 3, 1924. We do not agree in any particular with this contention. The father's duty to support his minor children is a continuing obligation subject to certain limitations. A divorce decree, awarding custody of minor children to the mother, does not destroy the relationship between the father and the children. The father's duty and liability to support remains the same as theretofore, except, (1) in so far as he is incapacitated, (2) in so far as the decree discharges and releases him from any natural, legal, or statutory duty to support his children, and (3) in so far as it can be said, in view of section 8035, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, that the support and maintenance rendered by the parent to whom custody has been awarded is voluntary or without an agreement for compensation.

¶4 The defendant contends that the equity conveyed to plaintiff in the property settlement was in the value of $ 1,500. The testimony of plaintiff is that she received by sale of this property $ 153, and that after defendant was first cited for contempt he paid her $ 100 for the support of the children, and that this is all that the defendant has contributed to the support of his wife or children. The divorce decree is silent as to the support of the children, likewise the agreement approved. The case of Bondies v. Porter, 40 Okla. 89, 136 P. 417, cited, is not applicable for the reason that there the action for the recovery and maintenance was by a relative, but not based upon an order of the court for support.

¶5 The case of Bondies v. Bondies, 40 Okla. 164, 136 P. 1089, is applicable wherein it cites Kendall v. Kendall, 5 Kan. App. 688, 48 P. 940, to the effect:

"Later in the same case the mother filed a motion for modification of the decree and the district court thereupon made the following order: '* * * (for support of minor children).'
"Upon appeal the court held that the trial court could require defen
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Phillips v. Home Undertakers, Case Number: 30960
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 8 Junio 1943
    ...and charge." This holding was followed and approved in Bondies v. Bondies, 40 Okla. 164, 136 P. 1089. In the later cases of Josey v. Josey, 114 Okla. 224, 245 P. 844, and West v. West, 114 Okla. 279, 246 P. 599, we said that after a decree of divorce awarding the custody of children to the ......
  • Ross v. Ross
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Marzo 1949
    ...Phillips v. Home Undertakers, 192 Okla. 597, 138 P.2d 550; Bondies v. Bondies, 40 Okla. 164, 136 P. 1089. In the cases of Josey v. Josey, 114 Okla. 224, 245 P. 844, and West v. West, 114 Okla. 279, 246 P. 599, we said that after a decree of divorce awarding the custody of children to the mo......
  • Sango v. Sango
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 12 Octubre 1926
    ...to the court of last resort and there affirmed does not alter the finality of the judgment. As stated in the case of Josey v. Josey, 114 Okla. 224, 245 P. 844, the duty to support one's minor children is a continuing obligation. However, on a motion to modify an award for maintenance and su......
  • Josey v. Josey
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 13 Abril 1926

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