Stanfield v. Stanfield

• Decision Date: 13 November 1917
• Docket Number: Case Number: 8798
• Citation: 168 P. 912,67 Okla. 56,1917 OK 540
• Parties: STANFIELD v. STANFIELD.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1917 OK 540

168 P. 912

67 Okla. 56

STANFIELD v. STANFIELD.

Case Number: 8798

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: November 13, 1917

Syllabus

¶0 1. Divorce--Alimony--Debt.

Alimony decreed to a wife in a divorce is as much a debt, until the decree is recalled or modified, as any judgment for money is.

2. Interest on Judgments--Statute.

By the statute in force at the time this judgment and decree was rendered (section 4741, Mansf. Digest): "Judgments or decrees upon contract bearing more than six per cent. interest shall bear the same interest as may be specified in such contracts, and the rate of interest shall be expressed in all such judgments and decrees, and all other judgments and decrees shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, until satisfaction is made."

3. Divorce--Interest--Payment of Alimony--Absence from Jurisdiction.

Record examined and held, that by the terms of the original judgment and decree of the trial court, which remains unmodified, the absence of the plaintiff in error from the jurisdiction of the court did not excuse the defendant in error from the payment of the installments of alimony falling due during such absence. Held, further, that the decree in favor of the plaintiff in error operated to cause an indebtedness to arise in her favor as each installment of alimony fell due and unpaid, upon which she was entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum.

Error from District Court, Craig County; Chas. G. Watts, Assigned Judge.

Application by Winifred T. Stanfield for an order requiring Wade S. Stanfield to show cause why he should not pay alimony past due, and for the determination of the amount due, with motion by defendant for the modification of the original decree. Motion of defendant denied, and amount due applicant on past installments fixed, and she brings error. Remanded with directions.

See, also, 22 Okla. 574, 98 P. 334.

C. Caldwell, for plaintiff in error.

KANE, J.

¶1 The questions for review herein arise out of an attempt on the part of the plaintiff in error to enforce and collect a certain judgment and decree for alimony awarded to her by the United States court for the Northern judicial district of the Indian Territory, sitting at Vinita, on the 21st day of October, 1905. Certain phases of the cause have been before this court for review on a former appeal, wherein an opinion was rendered fully stating the facts from the commencement of the original action up to the time the order complained of herein was entered. Stanfield v. Stanfield, 22 Okla. 574, 98 P. 334. Shortly after the action of the trial court complained of in the former appeal was reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court, with instructions to set aside the modification of the original decree, and to reinstate the decree as originally entered by the trial court, the plaintiff in error herein filed a motion for an order requiring the defendant in error to show cause why he should not pay alimony past due in accordance with the original judgment and decree. On the same day an order to show cause was issued, whereupon the defendant in error herein filed his response, to which the plaintiff in error filed an answer. This motion, response, and answer remained undisposed of from term to term, several executions being issued in the meantime and returned "No property found." Finally on the 19th day of February, 1916, plaintiff in error herein filed in the district court a supplemental pleading to said motion, wherein she prayed the court to hear and determine the amount due her and award execution therefor. Subsequently the plaintiff in error filed an application for an order upon said defendant in error to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court, which application was granted. Whereupon the defendant in error filed an application to modify the original decree. Thereafter the cause came on for hearing upon the application of the plaintiff in error to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court for failure to pay past due alimony, the application of plaintiff in error to hear and determine the amount due her on the past due installments of alimony, and the motion of the defendant in error to modify the original decree, which were all heard together. Thereafter the court rendered its decision in said proceedings, denying the motion of the defendant in error to modify the original decree, refusing to adjudge defendant in error in contempt of court, and fixing the amount due plaintiff in error on past due installments. In making the computation the trial court refused to allow the plaintiff in error the installments of alimony and support money accruing during several years she was absent from the jurisdiction of the court in Mexico, shortly after the rendition of the original decree, and also refused to allow her the legal rate of interest upon the past due installments of alimony. These are the only...