Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, No. 29760
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | RUDDY |
| Citation | 305 S.W.2d 40 |
| Decision Date | 04 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29760 |
| Parties | Barbara Rich NEUSTAEDTER (now Barbara Simon) (Plaintiff), Appellant, v. Helmut J. NEUSTAEDTER (Defendant), Respondent. |
Page 40
v.
Helmut J. NEUSTAEDTER (Defendant), Respondent.
Adolph K. Schwartz, St. Louis, Chapman, Schwartz & Chapman, St. Louis, of counsel, for appellant.
Hal A. Hamilton, St. Louis, for respondent.
RUDDY, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal by the mother of a minor child from an order modifying a divorce decree with respect to provisions for the temporary custody of the child. We shall refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant.
A petition for divorce was filed on July 3, 1951, by the plaintiff (appellant) in which she alleged she was married to the defendant (respondent) on the 27th day of June, 1948, and that there was one child born of the marriage on November 7, 1949, named Randall James.
On July 23, 1951, a decree of divorce was entered in favor of plaintiff. The decree awarded the care, custody and control of Randall James, the minor child of the parties, to the plaintiff until the further order of
Page 40
the court. Plaintiff was awarded the sum of $40 per month for the support and maintenance of said minor child and the defendant was awarded temporary custody of said minor child for thirty days a year after said child became three years of age.Thereafter, on September 19, 1955, defendant filed a motion to modify the decree of divorce with respect to the custody of the minor child. In his motion he alleged that his former wife had remarried and was now Barbara Simon and that he had remarried and was permanently residing in Denver, Colorado. He asked that he be granted temporary custody of said minor child during the month of July of each year and that he be permitted to have said custody at his home in the city of Denver, Colorado. He also asked that his parents be allowed the right of visitation with said minor child.
Plaintiff filed a counter-motion to modify the decree of divorce with respect to the support and custody provisions of the minor child. In her counter-motion she asked to have the support and maintenance of the child increased from $40 per month to $125 per month. She also asked that the right of temporary custody be denied the defendant, alleging that the permanent residence
Page 42
of the defendant in Denver, Colorado, was not a good environment for the child and that defendant's recent visits with the child have been disturbing to the child.The trial court after a hearing entered its order modifying the decree of divorce. The part of the order modifying the decree of divorce relevant to the issues presented by plaintiff in this appeal is as follows:
' * * * the defendant shall have temporary custody of minor child, Randall James, on alternate Sundays, between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., and when unable to exercise this privilege the paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Aescher Neustaedter, are to have the custody during the same period, and defendant shall have the further temporary custody of said minor child during the month of July of each year and is not permitted to take the child out of the State except with the approval of the Court, until the further order of the Court.'
The court further ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $50 per month for the support and maintenance of the said minor child. Defendant did not appeal.
The only point raised by plaintiff is that the trial court erred in modifying the decree of divorce by awarding temporary custody of the child to the paternal grandparents when the father of the child is unable to exercise his privilege of temporary custody on alternate Sundays. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the court erred in this respect because there was no showing that she was not a fit mother or that the welfare of the child demanded that the said grandparents have temporary custody on the Sundays defendant was unable to exercise his privilege of temporary custody.
At the threshold of this controversy we are faced with the contention made by the defendant that the alleged error relied on by the plaintiff was not presented to the trial court in her motion for new trial (citing the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 3.23, 42 V.A.M.S., and Section 512.160 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) and, therefore, plaintiff's point should not be considered by this court. This contention must be ruled against the defendant.
Plaintiff's motion for new trial complains about the order and judgment of modification as made and clearly charges that the defendant failed to prove any change of circumstance or condition which would authorize the order made by the court and said motion also charges that the defendant failed to prove that the order as made was for the best interest of the minor child. We think the motion for new trial adequately preserved for appeal the point relied on by the plaintiff. However, there is another answer to the contention of defendant to be found in the case of Montgomery v. Montgomery, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 189, involving a proceeding to modify a decree of divorce, wherein we held, pursuant to the provisions of Section 144(d) of the New Civil Code, Laws of Missouri 1943, page 388, now Section 510.310, subd. 4, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., applicable to cases tried upon facts without a jury, that questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment in cases tried as provided by the aforesaid section may be reviewed on appeal even though appellant failed to file a motion for new trial. The sole point presented by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. L. L., In Interest of, No. 8499
...1188, 247 S.W.2d 715, 718(2); Gross v. Merchants-Produce Bank, Mo.App., 390 S.W.2d 591, 594(2); Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, Mo.App., 305 S.W.2d 40, 42(2); Montgomery v. Montgomery, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 189,...
-
Lipsey v. Lipsey, No. 9009
...past actual custody. Stockton v. Guthary, Mo.App., 415 S.W.2d 308, 311(3), and cases there cited; Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, Mo.App., 305 S.W.2d 40, 43(5). See In re Wakefield, 365 Mo. (banc) 415, 425, 283 S.W.2d 467, This situation immediately casts a cloud upon instant plaintiff's standi......
-
Marriage of Cook, In re, Nos. 36477
...awards. Reeves v. Reeves, 399 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.App.1966); McCormack v. McCormack, 238 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App.1951); Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, 305 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.App.1957); Webb v. Webb, 475 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App.1971). As the trial court has not passed on the petitioner's motion for costs and attor......
-
State ex rel. Dubinsky v. Weinstein, No. 52079
...only an original party may file a motion to modify the custodial provisions of the divorce decree. Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, Mo.App., 305 S.W.2d 40(5). Also, it is settled that a divorce action abates upon the death of either party and in that event the court's power over the custody of a......
-
J. L. L., In Interest of, No. 8499
...1188, 247 S.W.2d 715, 718(2); Gross v. Merchants-Produce Bank, Mo.App., 390 S.W.2d 591, 594(2); Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, Mo.App., 305 S.W.2d 40, 42(2); Montgomery v. Montgomery, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 189,...
-
Lipsey v. Lipsey, No. 9009
...past actual custody. Stockton v. Guthary, Mo.App., 415 S.W.2d 308, 311(3), and cases there cited; Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, Mo.App., 305 S.W.2d 40, 43(5). See In re Wakefield, 365 Mo. (banc) 415, 425, 283 S.W.2d 467, This situation immediately casts a cloud upon instant plaintiff's standi......
-
Marriage of Cook, In re, Nos. 36477
...awards. Reeves v. Reeves, 399 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.App.1966); McCormack v. McCormack, 238 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App.1951); Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, 305 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.App.1957); Webb v. Webb, 475 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App.1971). As the trial court has not passed on the petitioner's motion for costs and attor......
-
State ex rel. Dubinsky v. Weinstein, No. 52079
...only an original party may file a motion to modify the custodial provisions of the divorce decree. Neustaedter v. Neustaedter, Mo.App., 305 S.W.2d 40(5). Also, it is settled that a divorce action abates upon the death of either party and in that event the court's power over the custody of a......