Sponseller v. Sponseller

• Decision Date: 27 May 1924
• Docket Number: 18236
• Citation: 110 Ohio St. 395,144 N.E. 48
• Parties: Sponseller v. Sponseller
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

144 N.E. 48

110 Ohio St. 395

Sponseller v. Sponseller

No. 18236

Supreme Court of Ohio

May 27, 1924

Husband and wife - Approval by court of alimony adjustment - Consent decree can not be collaterally attacked, when - Vacation or modification of decree for fraud - Sections 11681 and 11635 General Code - Performance a estoppel to collateral attack.

1.In a case where a wire sues for alimony, a cOurt has the power to approve an agreement made by the husband and wife adjusting Such alimony.

2.Where a court acquires jurisdiction over such Subject-matter and the parties, a consent decree, adjusting alimony can nOt be collaterally attacked.

3.If such decree has been fraudulently PrOcured, or obtained without consent, a party may have such consent decree vacated at the same term, or thereafter vacated or modified, under Sections 11631 and 11635, General Code.

d.Where a wife petitions for alimony, and the court by decree has aPproved an agreement between the husband and wife adjusting alimony, whereby the husband agrees to convoy Property to the wife on condition that she resumes marital relations with him, and thereafter she, in good faith, carries out the agreement, the hush&nd is estopped from collaterally attacking the validity of such decree.

William and Sadie Sponseller were husband and wife. On July 6, 1920 Sadie, the wife, filed her action asking partition, claiming ownership in fee simple of an undivided one-third part of certain premises in Crawford county, Ohio, and also for an accounting of rents and profits. The title to the other two-thirds of the premises was conceded to be in the husband. Other issues in relation to the conveyance of 26 1/2 acres to one Spaide and a mortgage to one Drexel were tried by the Court of Appeals and determined in favor of the plaintiff and will not be disturbed by this court. The alleged title to the one-third of the premises which plaintiff claims in her petition rests upon a certain decree made in a former case which will be referred to later.

William Sponseller, the husband, filed his answer and cross-petition to this partition case in which he made the following defense: That on November 22, 1912, the wife filed her petition in the Crawford county common pleas court, praying for alimony; that, without trying the cause, the alimony case was dismissed by mutual agreement on consideration that they should resume their relations as husband and wife, which mutual agreement was carried into effect; and that the decree awarding to plaintiff the undivided one-third of the premises was made without notice to the husband, was without authority in law, and was a cloud upon his title to the premises. He therefore asked that plaintiff's petition in partition be dismissed and the decree for alimony in the former case be canceled and expunged and for such general relief as he might be entitled.

The decree in the previous alimony case, rendered on November 27 1912, stated that the cause came on to be heard "on the pleadings and the evidence, and was submitted to the court, upon the same and the agreement of the parties herein, and the court being fully advised in the premises, and on consideration thereof finds that plaintiff was at the time of the filing of her petition herein, and amendment thereto, and still is, a bona fide resident of said county of Crawford and that there is a separation of plaintiff from defendant in consequence of ill treatment on his part against her, and that by reason thereof, and said agreement of the parties herein, the plaintiff is entitled to alimony out of the real estate of the defendant hereinafter described, which is subject to the life estate of said Sarah A. Sponseller, the widow of one Samuel Sponseller, deceased. It is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by court that said plaintiff, Sadie Sponseller, have and possess as and for alimony the equal one undivided third part of the following described lands and tenements of defendant subject to said life estate, to wit: [Description of the premises.] It is further considered, ordered adjudged and decreed by court that the said defendant, William Sponseller, within 20 days thereof, execute and deliver over to plaintiff his certain deed of general warranty conveying unto her the said equal one undivided third part of said lands and tenements subject to said life estate, and in default thereof this judgment and decree shall operate as and for such deed and so much thereof as would show the transfer of the title to said undivided equal one-third part of said real estate subject to said life estate shall be certified by the clerk of this court to the county recorder of said county for record. The court further finds that the charge made by the defendant as to the infidelity of the plaintiff is not sustained, and that defendant admits herein that said charges are not true, and all charges made by either party against the other are withdrawn. It is further considered, and adjudged by court that defendant pay all the costs herein taxed at $ ______, and execution for such said costs is hereby awarded."

This action in partition was filed in the common pleas court, which awarded partition and an accounting. The cause was appealed to the Court of Appeals, and in that court was heard upon its merits and submitted upon the pleadings and the evidence. The Court of Appeals found from the issues joined in favor of the plaintiff, awarded partition of the premises, as prayed, gave judgment to the wife for $866.66 on the Spaide transaction, found the wife to be surety only on the Drexel notes and mortgage, found the wife to be entitled to an accounting for rents and profits, and remanded the cause to the common pleas court for that purpose. Thereupon the plaintiff in error instituted proceedings in error in this court, seeking a reversal of the decree of the Court of Appeals.

Mr. O. W. Kennedy and Messrs. Gallinger & McCarron, for plaintiff in error. Mr. L. C. Feighner, for defendant in error.

JONES J.

In the suit for alimony filed by Sadie Sponseller on November 22 1912, the court heard the case on the issues joined, found that the plaintiff was a bona fide resident of the county, and that there was a separation of the wife from the husband "in consequence of ill treatment on his part against her." The court thereupon awarded her alimony under Section 11998, General Code, decreeing that the wife should "have and pOssess as and for alimony the equal one undivided third part" of the premises described. There is no doubt,...