O'Neal v. O'Neal, 4 Div. 326
| Decision Date | 09 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 326 |
| Citation | 284 Ala. 661,227 So.2d 430 |
| Parties | Meta Latuille O'NEAL v. J. Paul O'NEAL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jenkins, Cole, Callaway & Vance, Birmingham, for appellant.
W. H. Baldwin, Andalusia, for appellee.
The parties to this appeal were divorced by a decree entered October 27, 1947, later modified by decrees dated January 4, 1955 and July 9, 1959. The 1947 decree provided the appellee would pay $150.00 per month as support for a minor child and $100.00 per month as alimony to the appellant. The appellee was required to provide the child with a college education and upon exercise of that responsibility the monthly support payment of $150.00 would cease and the alimony would 'automatically be increased to $200.00 per month'.
As pertains to these monetary obligations of the appellee, the 1959 decree provided that 'the sum of $200.00 per month remains in effect but shall not become effective until such time as the child reaches the point where he requires advanced education and enters college'. The child entered college on September 2, 1962.
Following the 1959 decree the appellee made $100.00 payments to the appellant by checks bearing the legend 'Endorsement constitutes acceptance of alimony in full to date'. The amount was not increased to $200.00 in 1962, but continued at $100.00 until 1967 when writs of garnishment were sued out to collect the difference.
The appellee moved to dissolve garnishment writs obtained by the appellant to enforce collection of the arrearage. He also petitioned to modify the decree to eliminate the provision for alimony. The appellant petitioned to have the alimony of $200.00 per month increased to a more reasonable sum. The decree appealed from quashed the garnishment writs on the basis of no indebtedness and modified the decree to reduce the alimony payments from $200.00 monthly to $150.00.
The appellant contends each monthly alimony obligation of $200.00 became a judgment against the appellee to the extent of the difference of $100.00. We agree, and as said in Rochelle v. Rochelle, 235 Ala. 526, 179 So. 825, '* * * it is a fixed moneyed judgment, as to past-due installments, which can only be discharged as any other such judgment.'
Yet, the appellee contends and the trial court found that the appellant's acceptance without objection of the $100.00 checks with the provision as to endorsement, was a waiver of any unpaid alimony due when each check was presented for payment.
A judgment is the proper subject of an accord and satisfaction. Zorn v. Lowery, 236 Ala. 62, 181 So. 249. For payment of a lesser amount to operate as a satisfaction of a debt or judgment, there must be a bona fide dispute as to the amount due, or an independent consideration, or written agreement, or a surrender of the evidence of the debt. McCoy v. Wynn, 215 Ala. 172, 110 So. 129. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adtrav Corp. v. Duluth Travel, Inc.
...'without the intentional relinquishment of a known right.' " Ex parte Meztista, 845 So. 2d 795, 797 (Ala. 2001), quoting O'Neal v. O'Neal, 227 So. 2d 430 (1969). In response to the motion for partial summary judgment, Duluth asserts that ADTRAV cannot prove a "meeting of the minds," or that......
-
Dominex, Inc. v. Key
...(1943). Waiver, on the other hand, is the voluntary and intentional surrender or relinquishment of a known right. See O'Neal v. O'Neal, 284 Ala. 661, 227 So.2d 430 (1969); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hubbard, 272 Ala. 181, 129 So.2d 669 (1961). The "inconsistent position" alleg......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...that “past due installments of alimony have become a debt of record, i.e., a judgment in favor of the wife”), and O'Neal v. O'Neal, 284 Ala. 661, 663, 227 So.2d 430, 431 (1969) (explaining that each monthly alimony obligation is “ ‘a fixed moneyed judgment, as to past-due installments, whic......
-
In re Estate of Harless
...does not come from Austin, Miles, and Dodd. It comes from Armstrong v. Green, 260 Ala. 39, 68 So.2d 834 (1953), O'Neal v. O'Neal, 284 Ala. 661, 227 So.2d 430 (1969), and Andrews v. City National Bank of Birmingham, 349 So.2d 1 Armstrong established the rule that installment payments decreed......