Kraft v. Kraft, 2399.
| Citation | 155 A.2d 910 |
| Case Date | November 19, 1959 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
Mark P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., with whom Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., and Blaine P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
The respondent-appellant has taken this appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding for the custody of Lynn R. Kraft, a minor child born to the parties. Petitioner-appellee filed for the writ alleging that the child was being held in violation of a Maryland court decree which granted him an absolute divorce from appellant and custody of their daughter. Because of the errors assigned, a recitation of the facts essential to both suits is required.
The Krafts were married in the District of Columbia in 1948. Subsequently, they moved to Maryland and resided there for about five years prior to the divorce action. Their only child, the center of this controversy, was born on May 23, 1557. In June 1958 appellant left appellee and their child and went to New York City, failing to inform him or her parents of her whereabouts. She remained away ten weeks, during which time appellee had possession of and cared for the child. In the meantime, appellee filed for divorce in Maryland on August 8, 1958, on the ground of appellant's adulterous acts with certain men, and prayed for the custody of their daughter. Because appellant's whereabouts were then unknown, the Maryland court ordered publication of service of process in a local newspaper for four successive weeks, which commenced on August 14, 1958.1 In late August, appellant returned to the Maryland home. It was conceded in the trial court that she was a domiciliary resident of Maryland at least until the first part of October 1958. Sometime later she moved to the District of Columbia, taking the child with her. Concerning the divorce, the following testimony was also adduced in the trial court:
A hearing was held and testimony was taken by an Examiner in Equity of the Maryland court. His report was filed in November 1958. A final decree was issued by the Maryland court in December 1958 granting the husband an absolute divorce on the grounds of adultery and awarding him custody of the child. However, at the time of the hearing and the issuance of the decree Mrs. Kraft was apparently a resident of the District of Columbia. There was evidence that after consulting with counsel Mrs. Kraft elected not to appear and defend the Maryland action. Mr. Kraft instituted this suit in the District in January 1959.
The trial court found the Maryland decree to be valid and entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution of the United States; that the judgment was res judicata as to conditions then existing; and that the question before the court was what conditions, if any, had changed since the Mary-land judgment. The court found further that appellant had not shown any changed conditions, nor had she carried her burden of proof as to her own fitness to have custody. The court concluded that:
"Upon the above findings based first upon the best interest and welfare of the minor child and secondly, in the light of the unfitness of the mother at this time, the Court concludes that the respondent is not only unlawfully detaining the minor child in the District of Columbia contrary to the Maryland decree but that there has been no satisfactory evidentiary showing of a change of conditions since the issuance of the Maryland court's award of custody, and therefore the minor child should be returned to the petitioner * * *."
No argument is made concerning the child's domicile in relation to the Maryland decree, nor is the jurisdiction of the trial court over all parties challenged. However, appellant raises several contentions with the thrust of her position, both in her brief and on oral argument, being that the reliance upon and the interpretation given to the Maryland judgment by the trial court violated the rule of May v. Anderson.2 She maintains that the right to custody of a child by its mother is a personal right which cannot be adjudicated unless the trial court [Maryland] has personal jurisdiction over the person possessing the right.3 From this premise she reaches the conclusion that Maryland, having no personal jurisdiction, could not bind her by its decree, and that the part of the judgment which determined custody was invalid, neither entitled to the dignity of full faith and credit nor sufficient to call forth the effect of res judicata.4 Accordingly, she maintains that the basis for the Municipal Court's ruling did not exist, thereby making the entire ruling erroneous. No attack has been made upon the validity of the divorce.
The short answer to this claim and to appellant's other assignments of error is that the trial court found it "would make this same determination upon the evidence in the, trial even though there had been no prior adjudication by another court on the same question." The evidence was quite sufficient to support that finding. Furthermore, we recently had occasion to reiterate that the judgment of the trial court in a custody proceeding will not be upset absent a manifest abuse of judicial discretion.5 However, because appellant has raised a substantial argument through May
v. Anderson, supra, we feel it appropriate, especially considering the frequency with which Maryland and Virginia decrees appear before our courts, to make further comment.
It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of law only by comparing the facts from which they arise with those facts to which they supposedly apply. In May, Mr. Justice Burton said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gause v. U.S., No. 06-CF-20.
...States, 612 A.2d 160 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 1293, 122 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993), we explained: In Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910 (D.C. 1959), the court pointed out It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of the law only by comparin......
-
Williamson v. US, 90-883.
...General expressions transposed to other facts are often misleading. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, as we first stated in Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910, 913 (D.C.1959), and more recently reiterated first in Alston, 580 A.2d at 594 n. 12 and then in Khiem, slip op. at it is well to remember that ......
-
Diamen v. US, 96-CO-295, 96-CO-299, 96-CO-301.
...United States, 612 A.2d 160, 164 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 1293, 122 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993) (quoting Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910, 913 (D.C. 1959)). "[W]ords of our opinions are to be read in light of the facts of the case under discussion. . . . General expressions tran......
-
MATTER OF ADDAMS, 88-867
...the present case. The Quimby and Wilson opinions ought not to be removed from their moorings. As this court explained, in Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910, 913 (D.C. It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of the law only by comparing the facts from whi......
-
Gause v. U.S., No. 06-CF-20.
...States, 612 A.2d 160 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 1293, 122 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993), we explained: In Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910 (D.C. 1959), the court pointed out It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of the law only by comparin......
-
Williamson v. US, 90-883.
...General expressions transposed to other facts are often misleading. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, as we first stated in Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910, 913 (D.C.1959), and more recently reiterated first in Alston, 580 A.2d at 594 n. 12 and then in Khiem, slip op. at it is well to remember that ......
-
Diamen v. US, 96-CO-295, 96-CO-299, 96-CO-301.
...United States, 612 A.2d 160, 164 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 1293, 122 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993) (quoting Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910, 913 (D.C. 1959)). "[W]ords of our opinions are to be read in light of the facts of the case under discussion. . . . General expressions tran......
-
MATTER OF ADDAMS, 88-867
...the present case. The Quimby and Wilson opinions ought not to be removed from their moorings. As this court explained, in Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910, 913 (D.C. It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of the law only by comparing the facts from whi......