Simpkins v. Simpkins
| Decision Date | 16 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 51364,51364 |
| Parties | Arva SIMPKINS, Appellee, v. James SIMPKINS, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Garold F. Heslinga, Oskaloosa, for appellant.
Ben E. Kubby, Des Moines, for appellee.
We find nothing here, either in the pleadings or the proof, which supports the trial court's modification of the original decree of divorce between the parties. On January 11, 1963, the plaintiff was granted a divorce from the defendant in the Polk District Court. The parties had previously stipulated as to property rights and the payments for support of their three minor children to be made by the defendant. This stipulation was embodied in the decree, and so became an adjudication by the court of the rights and liabilities of the parties. Title to certain real estate was quieted in the plaintiff, she was given the household furniture and certain other benefits. The decree, as did the stipulation, provides that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of $100.00 per month for the support and maintenance of the children 'until the plaintiff remarries or the youngest child of the parties * * * shall reach the age of 18 years, whichever contingency occurs first.'
The defendant made the payments as decreed, including $50.00 in September, 1963. The plaintiff remarried on August 31 of that year; and as soon as this became known to the defendant he made no further payments. This application for modification resulted, and upon trial the court granted the relief asked, ordering the continuance of the payments, to the dissatisfaction of the defendant.
I. The rule of law applicable here is so well settled that little elaboration is required. Section 598.14, Code of 1962, I.C.A. provides: 'When a divorce is decreed, the court may make such order in relation to the children, property, parties, and the maintenance of the parties as shall be right.
'Subsequent changes may be made by it in these respects when circumstances render them expedient.'
We have consistently held that the language of the second paragraph means there must have been a material change in the circumstances since the entry of the original decree, before a modification may be granted. In Beyerink v. Beyerink, 240 Iowa 45, 48, 35 N.W.2d 458, 460, we said:
Almost innumerable cases to the same effect might be cited. A corollary rule is that the 'existing circumstances' are those known or which with reasonable diligence should have been known to the parties and to the court at the time of the entry of the original decree; that is to say, those which were within the contemplation of the litigants and the court when the decree was entered. Harwell v. Harwell, 253 Iowa 413, 417, 112 N.W.2d 868, 871.
Plaintiff's application for modification recites her remarriage, and defendant's refusal to pay thereafter, and then says: 'Due to the changed conditions as stated above the original decree should be modified so as to provide for the support and maintenance of said children by this defendant * * *'. The trial court in its findings of fact said: 'The only change which has occurred in the circumstances of the parties herein since the entry of the divorce decree is the marriage of the plaintiff, and such remarriage is not a sufficient change in circumstances to relieve defendant of his obligation to support his children.'
It is evident the petition failed to state a cause of action for modification, and the trial court's fact finding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alex v. Alex
...is to say, those which are within the contemplation of the litigants and the court when the decree was entered.' Simpkins v. Simpkins, 256 Iowa 989, 991, 129 N.W.2d 723, 724. Of course, not every change of circumstances is sufficient basis for modification of a divorce decree. Welch v. Welc......
-
Kelley v. Iowa Dept. of Social Services
...216 N.W. 629; In re Adoption of Cheney, 244 Iowa 1180, 59 N.W.2d 685; Mason v. Zolnosky, 251 Iowa 983, 103 N.W.2d 752; Simpkins v. Simpkins, 256 Iowa 989, 129 N.W.2d 723; see Beasley v. Beasley, 159 N.W.2d 449 (Iowa). Thus, when a stepparent and stepchildren are living together, the steppar......
-
Mears v. Mears
... ... Holland, 260 Iowa 248, 249, 149 N.W.2d 124, 125. See also Pucci v. Pucci, 259 Iowa 427, 432, 143 N.W.2d 353, 357; Simpkins v. Simpkins, 258 Iowa 87, 90, 137 N.W.2d 621, 622--623; and Pearson v. Pearson, 247 Iowa 437, 441, 74 N.W.2d 224, 226. It follows that a divorce or ... ...
-
Maikos v. Maikos, 52310
...modification. Section 598.14, Code of 1962; Burrell v. Burrell, supra; Heater v. Heater, 254 Iowa 586, 118 N.W.2d 587; Simpkins v. Simpkins, 256 Iowa 989, 129 N.W.2d 723; Welch v. Welch, 256 Iowa 1020, 129 N.W.2d 642; Herron v. Herron, 258 Iowa 1052, 141 N.W.2d 562. III. The burden to prove......