Shelley v. Shelley
| Decision Date | 18 May 1955 |
| Citation | 283 P.2d 663,204 Or. 436 |
| Parties | Patricia C. SHELLEY, Appellant, v. Grant R. SHELLEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Zanley F. Galton, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Goldstein, Galton & Galton, Portland.
Thomas R. Williams, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before TOOZE, Acting C. J., and ROSSMAN, LATOURETTE, and PERRY, JJ.
The plaintiff Patricia C. Shelley was granged a decree of divorce from the defendant Grant R. Shelley on November 21, 1951. The decree entered therein provided that the plaintiff should have the care, custody and control of the two minor children of the parties, and that the defendant should pay to the clerk of the court for the care, support, and education of the said minor children the sum of $80 per month, the first payment to be made on the first day of December, 1951, and a like sum on the first day of each succeeding month until further order of the court.
On September 24, 1952, the defendant filed his motion with the court to modify that portion of the original decree requiring the defendant to pay the sum of $80 per month for the care, support, and education of the minor children. While this motion was pending, and before the same was heard, the plaintiff, on December 18, 1952, commenced contempt proceedings against the defendant based upon the defendant's willful failure to comply with the terms of the decree of the court as to the monthly payments to be made. On January 7, 1953, the court adjudged the defendant to be guilty of contempt, and suspended the imposition of sentence upon the condition that the defendant pay to the clerk of the court the sum of $80 per month for a period of 90 days, the first payment to be made on the 23rd day of December, 1952, and a like payment on the 23rd day of January and February, 1953, and assessing attorney's fees and costs for the hearing. It was further provided in the decree that 90 days from the entry of the order the court would consider the motion of the defendant to modify the original decree entered November 21, 1951, which had provided the payments of $80 monthly for the care, support and education of the minor children.
On March 31, 1953, on hearing had on the motion of the defendant to modify the original decree, the court made the following finding of fact:
'That defendant is currently delinquent in the payments for the care, support, and education of the said minor children as provided for in said decree herein, and that the amount of said delinquency is the sum of $150.00; * * *'
and caused to be entered the following decree:
'Now, Therefore, It Is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed: That for a period of five (5) months, beginning on March 25, 1953, defendant pay to the Clerk of this Court, on behalf of plaintiff, the sum of $30.00 per month, or a total of $150.00, on account of the delinquency arising by the failure of the defendant to pay the amounts provided by the decree herein of November 21, 1951, for the care, support and education of the minor children of plaintiff and defendant; and
'It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed: That paragraph numbered 3 of the decree herein of November 21, 1951, requiring defendant to pay the sum of $80.00 per month to the Clerk of this Court for the care, support, and education of the minor children of plaintiff and defendant, be and the same is hereby modified to provide that the defendant pay the sum of $50.00 per month to the Clerk of this Court for the care, support and education of the minor children of plaintiff and defendant, until further order of this Court; and
'It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed: That defendant pay to the Clerk of this Court the sum of $35.00 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees incurred herein.'
From this decree as entered the plaintiff has appealed.
The plaintiff contends, (1) that all of the payments of $80 required to be made had become final judgments in any amount remaining unpaid up to and including the payment due on March 1, 1953, and that the trial court was without authority to modify that judgment; (2) that the trial court was without authority to enter a finding and decree to the effect that the defendant had made all payments required under said original decree of the court except the sum of $150; and (3) that the order of the court modifying its original decree and reducing the payments to be made from $80 to the sum of $50 per month was contrary to the evidence and facts before the court. We will consider the contentions of the plaintiff in the order in which they are above set out.
Prior to an amendment, Ch. 114, Oregon Laws, 1921, p. 225, there was left with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Eagen, Matter of
...p 225), that the court is without power to modify or change support money payments once they have become a judgment. Shelley v. Shelley, 1955, 204 Or. 436, 283 P.2d 663, reviewed the previous cases and confirmed that the statute does not permit the court to alter the prior installment judgm......
-
Ellis v. Ellis
...from Oregon courts the power to retroactively modify them. Poe v. Poe, 246 Or. 458, 459-460, 425 P.2d 767 (1967); Shelley v. Shelley, 204 Or. 436, 283 P.2d 663 (1955); Forbes v. Jennings, 124 Or. 497, 503, 264 P. 856 ORS 107.135(2) is not applicable here because this case does not involve s......
-
Marriage of Cope, Matter of
...court to set aside, alter or modify the judgments as to installments which accrued prior to the filing of the motion. Shelley v. Shelley, 204 Or. 436, 283 P.2d 663 (1955); Briggs v. Briggs, 178 Or. 193, 165 P.2d 772 (1946); Alspaugh and Alspaugh, 44 Or.App. 505, 605 P.2d 1386 In Alspaugh an......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...Forbes v. Jennings, 124 Or. 497, 264 P. 856 (1928). Statements in accord with this position are found in Shelley v. Shelley, 204 Or. 436, 440, 283 P.2d 663, 665 (1955); Stephens v. Stephens, 170 Or. 363, 367, 368, 132 P.2d 992, 994 (1943); Cousineau v. Cousineau, 155 Or. 184, 192, 63 P.2d 8......