Seigfreid v. Seigfreid

• Decision Date: 15 May 1945
• Docket Number: No. 26793.,26793.
• Citation: 187 S.W.2d 768
• Parties: SEIGFREID v. SEIGFREID.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

187 S.W.2d 768

SEIGFREID v. SEIGFREID.

No. 26793.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 15, 1945.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Joseph J. Ward, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by Anna Seigfreid against Raymond Seigfreid for divorce, wherein plaintiff was granted a divorce, the custody of a child and alimony for the support of the child. From an order denying defendant's motion for modification of the decree with respect to alimony and support for the child, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

John Grossman, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Rodowe H. Abeken and Roy H. Bergmann, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

On October 13, 1943, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granted plaintiff a divorce from the defendant and awarded plaintiff the custody of their child, Joan Frances, then nine years of age, and allowed plaintiff $40 per month as alimony and $50 per month for the support of the child. The allowance of alimony and support for the child was in accordance with the stipulation of the parties filed in the cause.

On October 23d, ten days after the divorce was granted, defendant remarried.

On August 30, 1944, defendant filed his motion seeking to have the divorce decree modified with respect to alimony and support for the child and also with respect to his right of visitation with the child.

The court, upon the trial of the motion, gave judgment modifying the decree with respect to the manner and time of exercising defendant's right of visitation with the child, and denying any modification of the decree with respect to alimony and support for the child. From this judgment defendant appeals.

Defendant complains here only of the action of the court in denying his motion with respect to the allowance of alimony and support for the child, insisting that the amounts awarded for these purposes should have been reduced because of changed conditions.

Defendant testified that at the time the decree of divorce was granted he was employed at the Emerson Electric Company, turret plant; that he had been employed by the Emerson Electric Company since August 23d, about seven weeks before the decree was granted; that he received from the company as weekly earnings payments as follows: October 3, $79.75; October 10, $78.25; October 17, $73.75; October 24, $84.25; October 31, $77.50; November 7, $85.75; November 14, $63.25; November 21, $73.75; November 28, $64.25; December 12, $62.95; December 26, $49.75; that around the first of the year there was a change in the number of his working hours per week, a cut back to fifty-four hours, something like that, and in May a cut back to forty-eight hours, and in September a cut back to forty-five hours; that in October, 1943, his working hours depended on the number of hours he wanted to put in; that on October 3d he was paid for sixty-four hours; that his payments for the past several months had averaged $61 gross, that is, before deductions; that after deductions of withholding tax and old age insurance he received approximately $53 a week net; that he had not drawn any pay under the reduction to forty-five hours made in September, but thought that under this reduction he would draw approximately $50 a week; that he was not permitted to work...