Ross v. Ross
| Decision Date | 14 December 1954 |
| Citation | 206 Misc. 1073 |
| Court | New York District Court |
| Parties | Annie B. Ross, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>Claude A. Ross, Respondent. |
Charles P. O'Brien, County Attorney (Justin C. Flannigan of counsel), for petitioner.
David Brown for respondent.
The petitioner, Annie B. Ross, brings this proceeding under the New York Uniform Support of Dependents Law for the purpose of obtaining support for herself as the former wife of Claude A. Ross, respondent.
The petition herein alleges in substance that the petitioner at the time of the filing of this petition was a resident of the State of California, and that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a marriage ceremony at Norfolk, Virginia, on September 20, 1930; that there were no children born of this marriage; that the marriage was terminated by a final decree of divorce granted to petitioner in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, on January 28, 1948, and that by the terms of the divorce decree the respondent was ordered to pay to the petitioner the sum of $125 a month on the fifth day of each month, commencing on February 5, 1947, and to continue until further order of the court, for her support; that the divorce was granted on the grounds of extreme cruelty and desertion.
The petition further alleges that the respondent has failed to make payments pursuant thereto and is now in arrears $1,350, and that the petitioner believes that the respondent has the ability to contribute to her support and maintenance in that he is a retired lieutenant commander of the regular Navy, and that his retirement pay is in excess of $400 per month; and the petition further alleges that the petitioner has a serious heart condition and is unable to work; that she has no income; and sets forth items that are necessary for her, such as housing, food, clothing, doctor and medical expenses, etc. The petition further states that the State of New York has a law substantially the same as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of the State of California (California Code Civ. Pro. [Deerings 1953 ed.], § 1650 et seq.) The papers are in order and properly certified, and attached thereto is a certified copy of the law of the State of California in respect to reciprocal support of dependents.
The respondent appeared and filed a verified answer to the petition and denies certain allegations of the petition on information and belief and denies specifically that the divorce decree granted as set forth in the petition is personally binding upon the respondent.
The respondent, Claude A. Ross, through his attorneys, raised the further defense that this court has no jurisdiction in the subject matter herein because the petitioner has divorced the respondent, and that the respondent is, therefore, not a husband liable for the support of his wife within the meaning of the New York Uniform Support of Dependents Law, and further states that the final decree of divorce mentioned by petitioner did not bind the respondent personally, in that the respondent was never served with process therein within the State of California; that the respondent was never at any time a resident or domiciliary of the State of California, nor did the respondent consent to jurisdiction in said action, and by reason thereof, moves for a dismissal of the petition herein.
An examination of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in the State of California shows that it is substantially similar to the New York Uniform Support of Dependents Law (L. 1949, ch. 807, as amd.), but there is a substantial difference in reference to the persons liable for the support of dependents.
In the California Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, subdivisions 6 and 7 of section 1653 read as follows: . Subdivision (a) of section 3 of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law of New York State, reads: "A husband in one state is hereby declared to be liable for the support of his wife and any child or children under seventeen years of age and any other dependent residing or found in the same state or in another state having substantially similar or reciprocal laws, and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...135 N.E.2d 562), there is a substantial difference in respect to the persons liable for the support of dependents (Ross v. Ross, 206 Misc. 1073, 1075, 136 N.Y.S.2d 23, 25) and in the matter of procedural detail (Santa Clara County, California v. Hughes, 43 Misc.2d 559, 564--565, 251 N.Y.S.2......
-
Carle v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...to secure or grant support. Fleischer v. Fleischer, 24 App.Div.2d 667, 261 N.Y.S.2d 165 (Sup. Ct. 1965); and Ross v. Ross, 206 Misc. 1073, 136 N.Y.S.2d 23 (Child Ct. 1954). An order for support of ‘a wife’ is always subject to the attack that the marital relationship has terminated. Travis ......
-
Santa Clara County, Cal. v. Hughes
...California courts, she would be estopped under the doctrine of Krause v. Krause, 282 N.Y. 355, 26 N.E.2d 290; see also Ross v. Ross, 206 Misc. 1073, 136 N.Y.S.2d 23. The question is, however, whether a wife by any conduct on her part, even though it result, for all practical purposes, in a ......
-
Proceeding for Support under Uniform Support of Dependents Law, Matter of
...14, 135 N.E.2d 562), there is a substantial difference in respect to the persons liable for the support of dependents (Ross v. Ross, 206 Misc. 1073, 1075, 136 N.Y.S.2d 23) and in the matter of procedural detail (Matter of County of Santa Clara v. Hughes, 43 Misc.2d 559, 564-565, 251 N.Y.S.2......