Koten v. Koten
Decision Date | 10 December 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 17435.,17435. |
Citation | 154 N.E. 146,323 Ill. 323 |
Parties | VAN KOTEN v. VAN KOTEN. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Champaign County; Franklin H. Boggs, Judge.
Bill by Ida Van Koten against Clifford E. Van Koten and others. Decree dismissing the bill, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Dobbins & Dobbins, of Champaign, for plaintiff in error.
Herrick & Herrick, of Farmer City, for defendant in error.
November 28, 1921, Clifford E. Van Koten and Ida Van Koten, residents of Champaign, being husband and wife and the parents of a child aged 7 years, entered into a written agreement which, after reciting that the parties thereto had ceased to live and cohabit together as husband and wife, and that it was the desire of the parties to arrange their property interests so that each might relinquish and surrender any and all rights and interest which he or she might have or claim in the property of the other and the wife to relinquish any rights which she might have to future support and maintenance from the husband, provided that, for and in consideration of the premises and of the sum of $3,000 in hand paid by Clifford E. to Ida Van Koten, and of the deliverance to her of all the household goods and furniture contained in the dwelling house formerly occupied by them, and the payment of all bills for family expenses then outstanding, she thereby released to him all claims, rights, title, or interest from making any claim for support or maintenance in any manner from him. It was further agreed that Van Koten should pay to his wife the sum of $20 on the first of every month for the care and support of the child, which payments were to continue as long as the child should be in her custody. It was further agreed between the parties that, in consideration of the division and adjustment of the properties, each agreed to and did thereby relinquish any and all future rights which he or she might acquire in any property of the other by reason of the marriage relation, and that, in case any such right or interest arose thereafter, each of the parties agreed to execute and deliver, on request, any and all instruments of conveyance to relinquish such right. After the signing of this agreement Van Koten paid to his wife the sum of $3,000 and delivered to her the household goods and furniture mentioned in the contract and paid to her each month the sum of $20 for the support of the child. Thereafter Ida Van Koten filed her bill in chancery in the circuit court of Champaign county against Clifford E. Van Koten, A. L. Schilling, and Lottie Schilling, praying that certain deeds signed by her and Van Koten to the Schillings should be canceled and set aside, and that the agreement of November 28, 1921, between her and Van Koten should be set aside and canceled, and that he should be required to pay to her a just proportion of the property accumulated during their married life and to make reasonable provision for the support of herself and child, and for general relief. Van Koten answered, denying her right to the relief sought. The other defendants did not answer and took no part in the case. The cause was referred to the master in chancery, who took the evidence and found against the complainant and submitted his findings of law and fact. Objections to his findings being overruled, by stipulation the objections stood as exceptions to the master's report. The court affirmed the master's report and dismissed the bill for want of equity. The record is now before this court for review upon writ of error.
It is contended by plaintiff in error that the decree should be reversed because the contract and the deeds signed by her were procured by fraud, and that, even if the agreement had been fairly entered into without fraud or concealment, it was void, for the reason that it states that its purpose is ‘to relinquish any rights which the party of the second part may have to the future support and maintenance from the party of the first part.’
[1][2][3] The law in this state is well settled that a husband and wife may by a written postnuptial contract, based...
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Roberts' Estate, 2253
-
Pope v. Pope
...144; Berge v. Berge, 366 Ill. 228, 8 N.E.2d 623; Vock v. Vock, 365 Ill. 432, 6 N.E.2d 843, 109 A.L.R. 1170; VanKoten v. VanKoten, 323 Ill. 323, 154 N.E. 146, 50 A.L.R. 347; Lyons v. Schanbacher, 316 Ill. 569, 147 N.E. Defendant cites no decision of this court which holds that a separate mai......
-
ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK v. United States
...nor can they contract to waive a wife's right to support because such is against public policy. In Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 325, 154 N.E. 146, 147, 50 A.L.R. 347, the Court "The law in this state is well settled that a husband and wife may by a written post nuptial contract, ba......
-
Reighley v. Cont'l Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago
...Support of the wife in case of justifiable separation is also a proper subject matter of contract in Illinois, VanKoten v. VanKoten, 323 Ill. 323, 154 N.E. 146, 50 A.L.R. 347. The marriage was annulled in the Berlin court on the ground of impotency, which in Illinois is a ground for divorce......