Leonard v. Kleitz
| Decision Date | 11 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | 35571. |
| Citation | 155 Kan. 626,127 P.2d 421 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. KLEITZ. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The statute of limitations begins to run against an installment payable under a judgment for child's support only when such installment becomes due and is unpaid.
Generally in respect to limitation of actions, the law of the forum governs, subject only to such exceptions as are embodied in the law of the forum. Gen.St.1935, 60-310.
In action to enforce a foreign judgment for child's support payable in installments, wherein recovery would not have been barred by limitations under law of state in which judgment was rendered, recovery as to any installments that had not been due and unpaid for more than five years prior to commencement of the action was not barred by Kansas five-year statute of limitations applicable to foreign judgments. Gen.St. 1935, 60-306, subd. 6; 60-310.
1. In the case of a judgment for child support, payable in installments, the statute of limitation does not start to run as to any such installments until they are in default.
2. The general rule is that in respect to the limitation of actions the law of the forum governs, subject only to such exceptions to the rule as are embodied in the law of the forum itself.
3. The record examined in an action to enforce a judgment for child support, entered in Missouri, and payable in installments and wherein it is conceded that recovery would not be barred under Missouri law, and held, that recovery is not barred as to any installments which had not been due and unpaid for more than five years prior to the commencement of the action [G.S. 60-306 (6)].
Appeal from District Court, Wyandotte County, Division No. 3; Harvey J. Emerson, Judge.
Action by Velma Mae Kleitz Leonard against Carl L. Kleitz to recover on a judgment for child's support rendered in a divorce action in Missouri. From judgment entered on an order sustaining plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings for the total amount of the weekly installments unpaid during the five year period immediately prior to filing of the action, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Arthur T. Noble, Jr., of Kansas City, Mo. (Tyree G. Newbill and W Arnold Brannock, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Lee E Weeks, of Kansas City (Arthur J. Stanley, Jr., and J. E. Schroeder, both of Kansas City, and Fred A. Bredehoft, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
This was an action to recover on a judgment for child support rendered in a divorce action in Missouri. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, for the total amount of the weekly installments unpaid during the five-year period immediately prior to the filing of the action. From an order sustaining this motion the defendant appeals. The question is whether recovery was barred by the statute of limitation.
Brief statement of the facts will suffice. Velma Mae Kleitz was granted a divorce from Carl L. Kleitz in Jackson County, Mo on September 15, 1933, both parties then being residents of that county. The plaintiff was awarded the custody of a minor child, then five years of age, and the defendant ordered to pay ten dollars a week for the support of the child until further order of the court. The defendant sometime thereafter became a resident of Wyandotte County, Kansas, and on January 4, 1941, the plaintiff, who had remarried, brought action in that county to collect the unpaid installments for child support. In her amended petition she pleaded the Missouri judgment, the provisions of the Missouri divorce statutes relative to custody and maintenance of children and certain decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri relative to the vested right of a wife in accrued installments of alimony, even though she has remarried before the installments had accrued. Upon motion of the defendant, all installments which had accrued prior to five years before the filing of the petition were stricken out. The defendant then answered alleging that no installment payments had been made for more than five years prior to the filing of the petition, pleading that under Missouri law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri the statute of limitations began to run on all installments on September 5, 1933, the day the judgment was rendered, and that recovery was therefore barred, as to all installments, under the Kansas five-year statut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rupe v. Triton Oil & Gas Corp.
...(1978) (where contract of employment fixes time for payment, action accrues at the end of each period of payment); Leonard v. Kleitz, 155 Kan. 626, 627, 127 P.2d 421 (1942) (alimony); see also FDIC v. Galloway, 856 F.2d 112, 116 (10th Cir.1988) (new action on continuing guaranty accrues as ......
-
Catlett v. Catlett, 40887
...under the provisions of the Texas decree are to be determined by the law of Oklahoma. Clester v. Heidt's Estate, supra; Leonard v. Kleitz, 155 Kan. 626, 127 P.2d 421. Defendant in his pleadings and evidence contends that the decree of the Texas court should be modified. He argues that the p......
-
Slade v. Slade
...Mexico statutes of limitation are applicable in this case. Haury v. Allstate Ins. Co., 384 F.2d 32 (10th Cir. 1967); Leonard v. Kleitz,155 Kan. 626, 127 P.2d 421 (1942); Heisel v. York, 46 N.M. 210, 125 P.2d 717 (1942). See also Annot., 36 A.L.R.2d 567, 578. Although the law favors the righ......
-
Fieldman By Fieldman v. Roper Corp., Civ. A. No. J82-538(R).
...of actions in that the law of the forum governs. Schrieber v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 611 F.2d 790 (10th Cir.1979), Leonard v. Kleitz, 155 Kan. 626, 127 P.2d 421 (1942). "If the statute of limitations of a foreign state is held by the courts of that state to be procedural, Mississippi courts,......