Ridenour v. Ridenour

• Decision Date: 15 August 1933
• Docket Number: 24562,24411.
• Citation: 24 P.2d 418,174 Wash. 152
• Parties: RIDENOUR v. RIDENOUR. STATE ex rel. RIDENOUR v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

24 P.2d 418

174 Wash. 152

RIDENOUR v. RIDENOUR.

STATE ex rel. RIDENOUR v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY.

Nos. 24562, 24411.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 15, 1933

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roscoe R. Smith, Judge.

Suit by Esther Ridenour against J. Clyde Ridenour, in which an interlocutory decree of divorce was made and entered.From on order entered in a contempt proceeding for failure to pay alimony claimed to be due under the terms of an interlocutory decree, defendant appeals, and the cause is consolidated with a prohibition proceeding by the State, on the relation of J Clyde Ridenour, against the Superior Court of King County.

Order appealed from reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.

Lewis &amp Black, of Seattle, for appellant.

Harry T. Ivers, of Seattle, for respondent.

BLAKE, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order entered in a contempt proceeding for failure to pay allmony claimed to be due under the terms of an interlocutory decree of divorce made and entered in the superior court of King county.

The appellant failing to appear in the divorce action, his default was entered June 22, 1931.The cause was tried June 25, 1931.On that day the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and signed the interlocutory decree which contained the following provision: 'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the settlement of community property heretofore entered into between the parties hereto be, and the same is hereby confirmed and made a part of this decree.'

The decree was filed in the clerk's office on June 26th.On the same day there was also filed in the clerk's office an agreement (marked 'Plaintiff's Exhibit A') executed by appellant and respondent on May 22, 1931.This agreement contained the following provision: 'To pay to the first party Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars per month beginning with the month of September, 1931, during such time as the first party shall be reviewing her previous business education, which the parties hereto at this time contemplate will be accomplished in three months, and Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars per month thereafter until the first party shall have obtained employment, said monthly payments to be suspended when such employment is obtained and to be renewed only in the event that such employment shall not prove to be permanent.Such monthly payments shall be renewed from time to time upon the loss of employment by the first party until said first party shall have obtained employment which shall continue for a period of eight (8) consecutive months, which such employment shall then be deemed to be permanent and which shall relieve the second party from any further payments to the first party.'

The sole question is whether the quoted portion of the interlocutory decree is such an order to pay alimony as will sustain contempt proceedings.There are cases holding that an agreement between husband and wife, providing for the unconditional payment by him of sums of money periodically which agreement is embodied in, or attached to, a decree of divorce, becomes in effect an order to pay alimony, upon which contempt proceedings may be predicated.Sessions v. Sessions,178 Minn. 75, 226 N.W. 211, 701;Tripp v. Superior Court,61 Cal.App. 64, 214 P. 252;Mesler v. Jackson Circuit Judge,188 Mich. 195, 154 N.W. 63.And one case has been called to our attention, which apparently holds that contempt proceedings may be predicated on a decree approving an agreement which was merely referred to by its date of execution.Ex parte Weiler, 106 Cal.App. 485, 289 P. 645.This case and the case of Tripp v. Superior Court, supra, were reviewed and distinguished by another division of the same court in Schnerr v. Schnerr,17 P.2d 749, 750, wherein the court held that approval and confirmation of a property settlement agreement in the decree was an insufficient basis for contempt proceedings.The court, in that case,...