Severance v. Severance
| Decision Date | 10 January 1933 |
| Citation | 183 N.E. 909,260 N.Y. 432 |
| Parties | SEVERANCE v. SEVERANCE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Faith G. Severance against Harold C. Severance. From an order of the Appellate Division (235 App. Div. 799, 255 N. Y. S. 998), which modified a decree of divorce striking therefrom a provision for the support of plaintiff on the ground that she had remarried, plaintiff appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City, for appellant.
Henry A. Uterhart and Edward D. Brown, both of New York City, for respondent.
The provision of the final judgment of divorce ‘directing payments of money for the support of the plaintiff’ should be stricken out, the plaintiff having remarried, but without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to seek relief under the provisions of the contract of December 12, 1925. We express no opinion as to her right to support under such contract.
The order should be modified in accordance with this opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Ordered accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMains v. McMains
...separation agreement fixing a lesser measure of support for the wife. And such has always been the law of New York (Severance v. Severance, 260 N.Y. 432, 183 N.E. 909; Salmon v. Salmon, 261 N.Y. 646, 185 N.E. 775; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296, 26 N.E.2d 265, supra; Kyff v. Kyff, 286 N.Y......
-
Burns v. Burns
...in the judgment requiring maintenance after remarriage. Severance v. Severance, 235 App.Div. 799, 255 N.Y.S. 998 (2nd Dept.1932), aff'd 260 N.Y. 432, 183 N.E. 909 (1933). The court stated that Section 1159 was "mandatory" and a cutoff of maintenance was required upon "the conceded fact that......
-
Helvering v. Leonard
...by modification of the allowances.' Holahan v. Holahan, supra, 234 App.Div. at page 574, 255 N.Y.S. at page 695. Cf. Severance v. Severance, 260 N.Y. 432, 183 N.E. 909. The reserved power apparently may be exercised where the provision in the separate agreement, approved by the decree, is f......
-
Howland v. Stitzer
...are relegated to their contractual rights under the agreement. Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296, 26 N.E.2d 265; Severance v. Severance, 260 N.Y. 432, 183 N.E. 909; Goldfish v. Goldfish, 193 App.Div. 686, 184 N.Y.S. 512. This simply means that although the agreement may constitute a valid an......