Mohler v. Mohler

• Decision Date: 02 April 1973
• Docket Number: No. 6413.,6413.
• Citation: 302 A.2d 737
• Parties: Richard Lee MOHLER, Appellant, v. Patsy Ann MOHLER, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

302 A.2d 737

Richard Lee MOHLER, Appellant, v. Patsy Ann MOHLER, Appellee.

No. 6413.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued November 29, 1972.

Decided April 2, 1973.

Rehearing en Banc Denied June 1, 1973.

D. Carroll McGean, Upper Marlboro, Md., for appellant.

Malcolm W. Houston, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before KERN, YEAGLEY and HARRIS, Associate Judges.

YEAGLEY, Associate Judge:

The parties hereto, having separated after being married 13 years, entered into an agreement of separation, custody and support for the wife and five children. This agreement, in addition, settled the division of their property. The Court of General Sessions,¹ July 11, 1969, issued a decree of separation into which was incorporated the above agreement of the parties. Subsequent thereto, in January 1971, the wife obtained an ex parte divorce decree in Maryland into which this same agreement was again incorporated.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying a motion filed January 10, 1972, by appellant husband asking that the decree of separate maintenance and support be set aside and praying that the court enter an order determining the respective rights of the parties anew. Prior thereto, on November 24, 1971, appellant unilaterally had begun to withhold a sum equal to the wife's share of his support payments. He also had refused to execute the necessary documents to permit a consummation of the sale of their real estate as he had agreed to do in the separation agreement.

Appellant's actions, like his motion, were grounded on allegations that appellee had permitted him only infrequent visits with his children. He also charged that she was attempting to discredit appellant and to destroy his reputation, image and relationship with the children.

For these reasons appellant asked for extensive revisions of the agreement including setting aside support payments to the wife, modification of the provisions for disbursement of proceeds from the sale of real estate, establishment of new provisions for his rights of visitation, and revision of the support payments for the children.

Appellee filed an opposition and a motion for summary judgment. In addition she filed a motion and affidavit to adjudicate the appellant in contempt for the inadequacy of his biweekly support payments, which he had unilaterally reduced to what he believed an appropriate level, and for his refusal to comply with the provisions of the separate maintenance decree regarding the execution of documents essential to obtain a distribution of the proceeds of the sale of certain of their real property.

The trial court ruled that it was without authority to disturb the provisions of the separate maintenance and support agreement which both parties had signed and which had been incorporated into the court decree. It noted, however, that it retained "the power to deal with the custody of the children, support, and the right of visitation." The court then found that the admitted facts before it demonstrated that the appellant was in willful contempt of the court. The court ordered that the appellant execute the documents necessary to a consummation of the real estate transaction so as to permit disbursement of the real estate proceeds and that he be placed in jail for 30 days or until such time as he should purge himself of his contempt by paying the deficiency (then $975) in the support payments as of that date. Lastly the court informed the parties that on the written motion of either one it would hold a separate hearing, during the summer school recess, regarding the husband's rights of visitation. The husband chose instead to take this appeal.

We find that the aforementioned order of the trial court was proper on the record herein and it is affirmed.

The separation agreement provided that:

[I]t is their mutual intention to fully settle and determine all matters arising from their marital status, leaving unsettled no matter so arising, and the parties mutually desire to settle all their present and future property rights and matters of custody, support and maintenance . . .

Although the contract said nothing about eventual divorce, it did provide that "[s]uch support payments to the wife are to continue until she remarries or dies." We conclude that the Maryland divorce had no effect on the continued validity of this agreement.

The husband appears to have approached the problem of visitation, and the other difficulties with appellee set forth in his motion, as a matter of breach of contract entitling him to disregard its provisions when in...