Oglesby v. Oglesby, 13138
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 13138,13138 |
| Citation | 29 Utah 2d 419,510 P.2d 1106 |
| Parties | d 419 Sharon P. OGLESBY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John Giles OGLESBY, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Michael W. Park, Cedar City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Thomas R. Blonquist, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.
Appeal from a judgment granting defendant's motion to vacate a judgment for arrearages alleged to have grown out of nonpayment of child support payments ordered in a 1963 Utah divorce decree, after which the defendant went to and resided in the state of Washington for several years before returning to Utah. Reversed with costs to plaintiff.
In the Utah divorce plaintiff was awarded custody of four children and $200 for their support. In 1966 defendant went to Washington and got behind in payments. The plaintiff instituted an action under the Uniform Reciprocal Support Act of 1963 (), 1 to recover the delinquencies. The King County Superior Court of Washington entered an order requiring defendant to pay $160 per month, based on a signed agreement between defendant who did not go to court, and a deputy prosecuting attorney who represented the plaintiff. The $40 monthly differential had the effect of reducing the erstwhile amount of income in the Utah decree by $800 by the time defendant returned to Utah. Plaintiff had him cited to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for not paying the full amount decreed in the divorce action. At the hearing the trial judge ordered him to pay the $800 plus $75 attorney's fees, which are the only subjects of this appeal, together with $200 per month in the future, as decreed in the divorce action. Defendant later made a motion to vacate the judgment as to the 'arrearages' and attorney's fees, which motion was granted.
The trial court chose to adopt defendant's contention that plaintiff was not entitled to nor could she collect the $40 monthly accruals or differentials because the Washington court had modified the Utah decree, under the uniform reciprocal support acts. We do not go along with such contention. It is true that under these acts a 'responding' state (Washington) may set a different amount that the 'obligor' (defendant) must pay, and in that sense there is a 'modification' of an amount, but we do not believe and do not hold that the decree of the 'initiating' state (Utah) was modified, vacated, reformed or eliminated. That decree was never modified by the Utah court, which should be given full faith and credit until changed by a duly constituted Utah court, and particularly where no evidence supports a changed circumstance situation,--not the case here. There appears to be nothing in either the Washington or Utah acts that points up any urgence for defendant's contention. On the contrary, it appears that those enactments actually recognize and respect the judgments of sister states,--when in the Washington act (26.21.190) and the Utah act (77--61a--30) under 'Application of Payments,' both say that
No order of support issued by a court of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Babcock v. Martinez
...by the court of a responding state'); Westberry v. Reynolds, (1982), 134 Ariz. 29, 32, 653 P.2d 379, 382; Oglesby v. Oglesby, (1973), 29 Utah 2d 419, 420, 510 P.2d 1106, 1107 (`It is true that under these acts a "responding" state (Washington) may set a different amount that the "obligor" (......
-
Marriage of Kramer, In re
...Howard v. Howard (Miss.1966), 191 So.2d 528, 531; In re Westberry (1982), 134 Ariz. 29, 32, 653 P.2d 379, 382; Oglesby v. Oglesby (1973), 29 Utah 2d 419, 420, 510 P.2d 1106, 1107; Ray v. Ray (1981), 247 Ga. 467, 469, 277 S.E.2d 495, 496; Thompson v. Thompson (S.D.1985), 366 N.W.2d 845, 847-......
-
Brookins v. Brookins, 44481
...Cahn v. Cahn, 117 Misc.2d 1054, 459 N.Y.S.2d 657 (N.Y.1982); Bernard v. Attebury, 629 P.2d 892 (Utah 1981); Oglesby v. Oglesby, 29 Utah 2d 419, 510 P.2d 1106 (1973); Horch v. Ponik, 132 Wis.2d 373, 392 N.W.2d 123 Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of......
-
Marriage of Gifford, In re
...by the court of a responding state"); Westberry v. Reynolds (1982), 134 Ariz. 29, 32, 653 P.2d 379, 382; Oglesby v. Oglesby (1973), 29 Utah 2d 419, 420, 510 P.2d 1106, 1107 ("It is true that under these acts a 'responding' state (Washington) may set a different amount that the 'obligor' (de......