Seltzer v. Seltzer
| Decision Date | 08 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 312,312 |
| Citation | 246 A.2d 264,251 Md. 44 |
| Parties | Stanley B. SELTZER v. Ann D. SELTZER. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Arthur A. Anderson, Jr., Annapolis, for appellant.
Eugene M. Lerner, Annapolis, for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and MARBURY, BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.
Appellant complains to us because the trial judge required him to pay a previously ordered alimony award to his former wife and a similar award for support of the minor children of the parties.
Appellee, without the consent of the lower court or appellant, took the children to Italy in October, 1966, where they remained until the summer of 1967.
Appellant contends he should not be ordered to make payments for the support of his children during the time they were in Italy. He also contends that he should not be obliged to pay his former wife alimony for the same period because she took the children to Europe without the consent of the lower court, thereby denying appellant visitation.
Appellant had a continuing common law obligation to support his children. Kriedo v. kriedo, 159 Md. 229, 150 A. 720 (1930). This responsibility does not necessarily terminate when the child is not within the jurisdiction. State v. James, 203 Md. 113, at 124, 100 A.2d 12 (1953).
It is clear that the court in the exercise of a sound discretion may vary or modify an order for support and maintenance of children. Code , Art. 16, §§ 25, 66. Price v. Price, 232 Md. 379, 194 A.2d 99 (1963); Bebermeyer v. Bebermeyer, 241 Md. 72, 215 A.2d 463 (1965). We see nothing to show that the trial court's exercise of discretion in the case before us was not sound.
Judgment affirmed. Costs to be paid by appellant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. of Va. ex rel. Halsey v. Autry
...noncustodial parent's obligation of support. Stancill v. Stancill, 286 Md. 530, 538, 408 A.2d 1030, 1035 (1979); Seltzer v. Seltzer, 251 Md. 44, 45, 246 A.2d 264, 265 (1968).17 The trial court's reliance on Chance v. LaPausky, 43 Md.App. 84, 402 A.2d 1329 (1979), was misplaced. There, a hus......
-
Monticello v. Monticello
...at any time because of a change in circumstances, Wooddy v. Wooddy, 258 Md. 224, 228, 265 A.2d 467, 470 (1970); Seltzer v. Seltzer, 251 Md. 44, 45, 246 A.2d 264, 265 (1968), whether or not there has been an agreement between the parties, Price v. Price, 232 Md. 379, 383, 194 A.2d 99, 101 (1......
-
Wooddy v. Wooddy
...or modified by the court in the exercise of its sound discretion, Code (1957, 1966 Repl. Vol.) Art. 16, §§ 25, 66; Seltzer v. Seltzer, 251 Md. 44, 246 A.2d 264 (1968); Bebermeyer v. Bebermeyer, 241 Md. 72, 215 A.2d 463 (1965); Price v. Price, 232 Md. 379, 194 A.2d 99 (1963), but that an awa......
-
Rand v. Rand
...is primarily liable for the support of his minor children, and that, it is his financial worth which must be considered. E. g., Seltzer v. Seltzer, supra; Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143, 238 A.2d 903 (1968); Chalkley v. Chalkley, 240 Md. 743, 215 A.2d 807 (1966); Woodall v. Woodall, 16 Md.......