Lloyd v. Lloyd, 1
| Decision Date | 08 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
| Citation | 23 Ariz.App. 376,533 P.2d 684 |
| Parties | Lois M. LLOYD, Appellant, v. Lawrence P. LLOYD, Jr., Appellee. 2515. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
A judgment and decree of divorce between the appellant and appellee was entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court on July 29, 1971. The instant case is an appeal from a subsequent judgment relieving the husband, Lawrence P. Lloyd, Jr. of any further obligation to make installment payments on an award to his former wife arising out of the original divorce decree. The judgment appealed from was entered on May 14, 1973, almost two years after the original divorce decree.
We are called upon to determine whether a final judgment of alimony in one lump sum payable in installments is prospective in application, such that it could be later modified by the court under Rule 60(c)(5), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
The original decree provided in paragraph 7 that the appellee:
'Lawrence P. Lloyd, Jr. pay to Lois M. Lloyd the sum of $6,000.00, payable in instalments of $100.00 or more each month beginning August 1, 1971 until paid, said support payments to be made through the Clerk of this Court;'
It is our opinion that a reasonable interpretation of this provision is that it is a lump sum obligation of Lawrence P. Lloyd, Jr. in the sum of $6,000 owed to Lois M. Lloyd, and it is Not prospective in application. The provision that it could be paid in monthly installments does not alter our opinion. We do not doubt (as urged by appellant) that the judgment debt could have been paid off at any time by Mr. Lloyd and a satisfaction received from Mrs. Lloyd.
For Rule 60(c)(5) to be invoked to obtain relief from a final judgment, it must be shown that the judgment has prospective application. Rule 60(c)(5) states in part:
In our opinion a money judgment for one lump sum, regardless of the method of payment, is a final judgment, not prospective in application. Therefore, in the instant case the proper method of attacking this lump sum alimony award (absent other facts) was by direct appeal, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make further modification. It has been held in Arizona that where a lump sum payment is awarded by divorce decree it constitutes an absolute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birt v. Birt
...does have prospective application. ¶ 13 Wife cites Edsall v. Superior Court, 143 Ariz. 240, 693 P.2d 895 (1984) and Lloyd v. Lloyd, 23 Ariz.App. 376, 533 P.2d 684 (1975), superseded by statute as found in Fye v. Zigoures, 114 Ariz. 579, 581, 562 P.2d 1077, 1079 (App.1977), in support of reo......
-
Lindsay v. Lindsay
...v. Damme, 138 Neb. 320, 292 N.W. 921 (1940)); see also Barnett v. Barnett, 95 Ariz. 226, 388 P.2d 433 (1964); Lloyd v. Lloyd, 23 Ariz.App. 376, 533 P.2d 684 (1975) (decree entered under pre-1973 law); Bennett v. Bennett, 17 Ariz.App. 101, 495 P.2d 871 (1972); Bartholomew v. Superior Court, ......
-
Boisselle v. Boisselle
...the application of civil rules modeled on F.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) to divorce property decrees. Particularly instructive is Lloyd v. Lloyd, 23 Ariz.App. 376, 533 P.2d 684 (1975), 2 in which a husband sought under the Arizona rule, numbered Rule 60(c)(5), to modify an order requiring him to pay his......
-
Waldren v. Waldren
...order under our current marriage dissolution statutes has prospective application within the meaning of Rule 60(c)(5). ¶ 19 In Lloyd v. Lloyd, this court held that Rule 60(c)(5) is inapplicable to modify a lump sum alimony or property settlement award.4 23 Ariz.App. 376, 533 P.2d 684 (1975)......