Kriedo v. Kriedo, 14.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 14.,14.
• Citation: 150 A. 720
• Parties: KRIEDO v. KRIEDO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

150 A. 720

KRIEDO

v. KRIEDO.

No. 14.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 10, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne, Judge.

Divorce action by Mary Kriedo against Leo H. Kriedo. Decree of divorce, and, from a subsequent order sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's petition for an order directing defendant to pay amount of hospital and funeral bills theretofore paid by her on account of minor child, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C. J., and PATTISON, URNER, AD KINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, and SLOAN, JJ.

H. Harry Rosenberg, of Baltimore (Samuel Lasch, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph Burke, of Baltimore (Bernhard Cline, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

DIGGES, J.

On the 10th day of February, 1927, the appellant was divorced a vinculo matrimonii from the appellee by decree of circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore city. The decree provided that the appellant (the mother) should have the guardianship and custody of Morris Kriedo, the minor child of the parties, with privilege to the appellee (father) to see the child at all reasonable times, and that the father pay to the mother the sum of $7 per week, accounting from the date of the decree, for the support of said child, until he should become self-supporting or until the further order of the court. It appears the decree was in conformity with an agreement entered into between the parties, except that the chancellor added "or until the further order of the court."

On August 1, 1929, the appellant filed her petition in the divorce proceedings, in which, after reciting the decree in the original case, it is in substance alleged that Morris Kriedo was eight years of age at the time of its passage; that he was taken seriously ill with appendicitis on or about March 28, 1929, was promptly taken to a hospital, wherein he underwent two operations, and as a result of said illness he died on April 10, 1929, at which time he was ten years of age; that during said illness, and by reason of said death, the appellant incurred expenses for hospital, medical, surgical, and funeral services, in the aggregate amount of $712.10; that the $7 per week allowed by the decree was hardly sufficient, and was only intended to cover the actual and ordinary expenses for the support of the child, and did not cover such expenses as were incident to his illness and death; that the appellant is in poor health, scarcely able to support herself; that the appellee is a diamond setter and watchmaker, and also conducts a jewelry store; that the appellant has borrowed money and paid the hospital and funeral expenses, amounting respectively to $290.10 and $110, which she is obligated to repay; that the bills of Dr. Silverman, for $250, and Dr. Abrams, for $62 are unpaid. The petition prays for an order directing the appellee to pay the appellant the amount of the hospital and funeral bills theretofore paid by her, and also pay Dr. Silverman and Dr. Abrams their bills as above set forth. A demurrer being interposed, and sustained by the court, this appeal resulted.

It is settled in this state that a father is under the common-law obligation to support a minor child, without regard to a decree divorcing the parents. Blades v. Szatai, 151 Md. 644,135 A. 841, 842, 50 A. L. R. 232. The question there considered was the liability of a deceased father's estate for the payment of support money during minority as awarded by decree divorcing the parents and giving the custody of the child to the mother. It was there said: "The father was under the common-law obligation to support his child during its minority, and this obligation continued without regard to a divorce decree, unless in that decree the court should order that it be supported by some one other than the father. The fact that the decree ordered the father to pay $3 per week to the mother for the support of the child, in no way affected his common-law obligation to support it, tout only prescribed the amount to be paid for its support, and through whom the child was entitled to receive it." It is equally well settled that parties to divorce proceedings cannot by agreement between themselves fix the amount necessary for the support and maintenance of their minor children, so as to bind the courts. The court may adopt the amount agreed upon and incorporate it in the decree, but it has the power to change or modify the decree in this respect, when it shall be made satisfactorily apparent that new or changed conditions or circumstances make a modification necessary. Alvey v. Hartwig, 106 Md. 254, 67 A. 132, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 678, 14 Ann. Cas. 250; Boggs v. Boggs, 138 Md. 422, 114 A. 474; Melson v. Melson, 151 Md. 196, 134 A. 136, 140; Code, art. 16, § 39; Hood v. Hood, 138 Md. 366, 113 A. 895, 15 A. L. R. 774.

The petition here specifically alleges that the claims of Dr. Silverman and Dr. Abrams, amounting to $312, have not been paid, and prays that an order be passed by the chancellor directing such payment it is clear, we think, that if the appellee is indebted to anybody for this amount, it is to the doctors and not to the appellant. The implied obligation on the part of the father to pay for necessaries for the support of a minor child is to the person furnishing same; this implication arising by reason of the duty and obligation imposed upon the father by law to provide properly and reasonably for the support of minor children, according to their station in life and the financial ability of the father. That this obligation is to the person providing the child with such support or rendering necessary services has been definitely determined by this court. McCurley v. Stockbridge, 62 Md. 422, 50 Am. Rep. 229; Carter v. Carter, 156 Md. 500, 144 A. 490, 494.

In the lastmentioned case, which was...