Partridge v. Partridge

Decision Date27 September 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-1020,78-1020
Citation43 Colo.App. 253,601 P.2d 662
PartiesRoy P. PARTRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeanne A. PARTRIDGE, n/k/a Jeanne A. Huey, Defendant-Appellant. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

J. E. Kuttler, P. C., J. E. Kuttler, Aurora, for plaintiff-appellee.

Feuer, Flossic & Rich, Bruce Myr Flossic, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

SMITH, Judge.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved by a final decree on May 7, 1967. The decree awarded custody of the eight minor children of the parties to wife and ordered husband to pay the sum of $600 per month as child support. The district court has not modified or amended that support order since the date of its original entry. Subsequent to the entry of this order, husband left Colorado and moved to California. He later moved to Texas.

When husband failed to pay the ordered support, wife sought aid for payment through the filing of a uniform reciprocal enforcement of support proceeding in California. The California court entered an order requiring husband to pay the sum of $200 per month for six months beginning December 1, 1967, for child support, and thereafter to pay $450 per month for child support. Husband complied with this order.

When husband moved his residency to Texas in the latter part of December 1968, wife again sought payment of support through the filing of another uniform reciprocal enforcement of support proceeding in Texas. In 1969, the Texas court ordered the husband to pay the sum of $50 per week for the support and maintenance of the children beginning September 1, 1969. Husband complied with the provisions of this order.

On August 4, 1978, wife moved the Arapahoe County District Court to reduce support arrearages to judgment in the amount of approximately $35,000. The court denied the wife's motion concluding that husband had relied on the provisions of the California and Texas decrees and that equity therefore dictated a modification of the terms of the original decree as related to child support. We reverse that order.

Past due installments for child support under a valid order constitute debts, and are, in and of themselves, matured obligations which a trial court has no power or authority to cancel unless there exist adequate grounds for equitable relief from such an obligation. Carey v. Carey, 29 Colo.App. 328, 486 P.2d 38 (1971). Also, a modification order entered by a Colorado court as the responding state under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act does not affect the obligee's right under the divorce decree as entered. Jackson v. Jackson, 157 Colo. 564, 404 P.2d 281 (1965).

Husband argues, however, that wife has acquiesced to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Nissen v. Miller
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 1982
    ...judgment, the trial court refused to allow this defense on the basis of Jenner. The Colorado Court, quoting from Partridge v. Partridge, 43 Colo.App. 253, 601 P.2d 662 (1979), stated the proper rule is that past due installments are matured obligations which the court has no power to cancel......
  • Henry v. Knight
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1987
    ...Kansas State Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Henderson, 620 P.2d 60 (Colo.App.1980); Partridge v. Partridge, 43 Colo.App. 253, 601 P.2d 662 (Colo.App.1979). The remedies provided by RURESA are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other remedies that may exist. ......
  • Kansas State Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 1980
    ...as the responding court in a URESA proceeding, does not affect the parties' rights and duties under the decree, see Partridge v. Partridge, Colo.App., 601 P.2d 662 (1979), because the remedies under URESA are "in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies." Section 14-5-104,......
  • Marriage of Franklin, In re, 80CA0662
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 10, 1981
    ...correct rule of law applicable to determining amounts of child support due in situations such as this is stated in Partridge v. Partridge, Colo.App., 601 P.2d 662 (1979): "Past due installments for child support under a valid order constitute debts, and are, in and of themselves, matured ob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT