Shotwell v. Shotwell, 2870
| Decision Date | 19 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 2870,2870 |
| Citation | 339 P.2d 410,80 Wyo. 190 |
| Parties | Clara K. SHOTWELL, Appellant, (Plaintiff below), v. Earl C. SHOTWELL, Appellee, (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Brooke Wunnicke, Cheyenne, for appellant.
James A. Greenwood, Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER and HARNSBERGER, JJ. Mr. Justice HARNSBERGER delivered the opinion of the court
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the district court refusing to modify the provision for support and maintenance of a minor child which was made in a decree divorcing the parties to this proceeding.
No transcript of the evidence appears in the record and the appeal is submitted upon an agreed statement consisting of a statement of the case, statement of points on appeal and copies of pleadings. A summary of the situation thus presented discloses that on May 9, 1955, plaintiff sought modification of that portion of the decree which related to support of the minor in order to require defendant to make monthly cash payments in such amount as the court should deem fair and reasonable. The detail of defendant's answer, which resisted the petition for modification, need not be recounted here as the parties agree the sole question to be decided on this appeal is whether under the divorce decree requiring the father to convey to the child an undivided one-half interest in the home relieved the father from further contribution for the support of the child so long as the child retains the one-half interest in the real estate conveyed to it in fulfillment of the decree.
In submitting the appeal to this court, appellant's counsel has filed an exhaustive brief dealing with the appealability of the order denying the petition for modification; the jurisdiction of the district court to modify; the equitable jurisdiction of the district court to deal with matters relating to support of a minor; the construction of a decree to uphold the court's intention; the chargeability of the minor's support expenses against the minor's estate, coupled with the contention that such estate has now been consumed, thus leaving defendant now liable for the minor's further support; and that Wyoming law is agreeable to modification of the decree in the manner sought.
Without resort to authority, we may say there is no doubt but that the order denying modification is an appealable order; that the district court did have jurisdiction to modify the initial support decree; that it was within the equitable jurisdiction of the court to deal with matters relating to the support of the minor and that such a construction of the court's decree should be given as will uphold its intention. These matters are almost if not altogether elementary. We may also agree that under some circumstances the expenses incurred in supporting a minor may be chargeable against the minor's estate in a proper proceeding to accomplish that purpose, but that question is not before us nor may we now pass upon appellant's claim that the estate of the minor has been consumed. In the first place, there is no transcript of the evidence concerning that matter and, in any event, it is a matter between the person claiming the charge and the minor.
As indicated above, the real question we are called upon to decide under the agreed statement is: Did the court err in interpreting the divorce decree which required defendant to convey unto the minor an undivided one-half interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chorney v. Chorney
...also is the rule that the divorce decree involved is to be given such construction as will uphold its intention. Shotwell v. Shotwell, 80 Wyo. 190, 339 P.2d 410, 411. This for the reason that, in final analysis, disposition of the instant case is largely dependent upon the meaning to be giv......
- Elder v. Clawson