Sweeney's Estate, In re, 46631
Decision Date | 19 July 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 46631,46631 |
Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of John E. SWEENEY, Deceased. Virginia J. SWEENEY, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF TOPEKA, Kansas, Executor and Testamentary Trustee of the Estate of John E. Sweeney, Deceased, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The general rule is that periodic payments of alimony to a divorced wife terminate upon the former husband's death in the absence of a provision in the settlement agreement, or in the decree, which expressly so states, or contains language which makes the intent unmistakably clear that such payments are to continue after his death.
2. Parties to a divorce action have the right to contract in a separation agreement that alimony payments to the wife shall continue after the former husband's death, and where such agreement is approved by the court and incorporated in the decree, it may be enforceable against the husband's estate.
3. A parent, particularly the father, has a continuing obligation to support his minor children, irrespective of any decree of divorce to that effect.
4. At common law, a father's duty to support his children ends with his death.
5. Parties to a divorce action who enter into a separation agreement which is confirmed by the district court and incorporated into the decree, may expressly provide in the agreement for the support, maintenance, and education of their minor children, and that upon the death of the father child support payments may continue and be enforceable against his estate during the children's minority.
6. In the absence of language in a separation agreement which has been confirmed by the district court and incorporated in the decree of divorce pursuant to K.S.A.1971 Supp. 60-1610(d), that an obligation on the part of the father to make periodic payments for the support, maintenance, and education of the minor children of the parties was to survive the death of the father and be paid from his estate, a decree awarding child support which merely recites that the obligation was to continue 'until each of said children shall have attained his majority or until the further order of the court,' does not bind the father's estate for payments accruing after his death.
7. The record in a probate proceeding by a divorced wife to enforce claims against her former husband's estate for future monthly payments of alimony and child support accruing after his death, based upon their separation agreement, which was confirmed by the district court and incorporated in the divorce decree pursuant to K.S.A.1971 Supp. 60-1610(d), is examined, and it is held: The separation agreement did not expressly state or contain language which clearly and unmistakably evidence the intent that obligations for alimony and child support were to survive the death of the husband so as to bind his estate, and such claims were not valid and enforceable.
Robert Ochs, of Fisher & Benfer, Topeka, argued the cause, and Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Topeka, was with him on the brief, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Eugene W. Hiatt, of Hiatt & Spurgeon, Chartered, Topeka, argued the cause, and Leland M. Spurgeon and Kenneth F. Crockett, Topeka, were with him on the brief, for appellee and cross-appellant.
This appeal arises out of a claim for alimony and child support against a decedent's estate. The facts are not in dispute.
Following several years of marriage and the birth of five children, Virginia J. Sweeney sued John E. Sweeney for separate maintenance. Before the matter was heard, and on October 11, 1966, Virginia and John entered into what was characterized as a 'stipulation' in which they stated they had been unable to reconcile their differences and believed that a permanent separation must ensue.
The stipulation is too extensive to be presented here in full. It is sufficient to say that Virginia agreed to amend her separate maintenance petition to the extent necessary to seek a divorce from John. The stipulation provided for (a) the division of all the real and personal property of the parties; (b) the custody, support and education of their minor children, and (c) the future support of Virginia, denominated as alimony.
On the same day, October 11, 1966, the district court permitted the petition for separate maintenance to be amended; granted a divorce to Virginia; found the terms of the stipulation to be fair, just and equitable, approved the same, and ordered the stipulation be incorporated into the decree.
The stipulation contained 18 paragraphs which were written in full in the district court's decree of divorce as separate findings of the court, and were likewise written in full in separate paragraphs in the judgment portion of the decree. In the interest of brevity and to avoid repetition of quoting from the stipulation and the judgment portion of the decree, the various pertinent paragraphs of the stipulation, as well as the separate findings of the court incorporating such paragraphs into the decree, are quoted as follows:
'And now the court, having heard the testimony of plaintiff and her witness, and after hearing the statements of counsel, examining the files herein, and being well and fully advised in the premises, finds:
The journal entry was filed of record as of January 11, 1967. Virginia was awarded the care, custody and control of the minor children. On March 5, 1970, when the proceedings out of which this appeal arises were commenced, there were three minor children in the home-Craig, born April 7, 1951; Michael, born December 18, 1954, and Mary Catherine, born December 2, 1961.
Virginia has not remarried; she was 50 years of age on December 2, 1969, and is in good health.
Sometime after the divorce, and on a date not disclosed by the record, John married Martha Maynard Sweeney, his surviving spouse, hereafter referred to as Martha.
On July 23, 1969, John executed his Last Will and Testament in which he directed his executor to pay all his debts, including funeral expenses and all federal and state inheritance taxes; he bequeathed all of his household goods, wearing apparel, and his automobile to Martha. He devised the residue and remainder of his estate to the Merchants National Bank of Topeka, hereafter referred to as the bank, the executor, or the trustee, in trust for Martha's benefit during her lifetime, then to his children. The bank was named executor of John's estate, and was also named Testamentary Trustee in his will.
No other instrument or document setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Cray, Matter of
...provides in unmistakably clear terms the intent that payments continue after the obligor spouse's death. In re Estate of Sweeney, 210 Kan. 216, 224-25, 500 P.2d 56 (1972). So too, because "[t]he basic idea of alimony is that it is an allowance for support; and where it takes the form of sta......
-
Benson ex rel. Patterson v. Patterson
...§ 46(b)-84); Flagler v. Flagler, 94 So.2d 592 (Fla.1957); Foskey v. Foskey, 257 Ga. 736, 363 S.E.2d 547 (1988); In re Estate of Sweeney, 210 Kan. 216, 500 P.2d 56 (1972); Bowling v. Robinson, 332 S.W.2d 285 (Ky.1960); Wooddy v. Wooddy, 258 Md. 224, 265 A.2d 467 (1970); Smith v. Smith, 349 S......
-
Abrego v. Abrego
...bond, or other guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the court to ensure the payment of child support."3 In re Estate of Sweeney, 210 Kan. 216, 500 P.2d 56, 67 (1972); Bailey v. Bailey, 86 Nev. 483, 471 P.2d 220, 223 (1970); Streight v. Estate of Streight, 226 Or. 386, 360 P.2d 304......
-
Benson ex rel. Patterson v. Patterson
...736, 363 S.E.2d 547, 548 (1988) (periodic payment of alimony and child support terminates at death of obligor); In re Estate of Sweeney, 210 Kan. 216, 500 P.2d 56, 67 (1972) (separation agreement must expressly state duty survives death of obligor); Bowling v. Robinson, 332 S.W.2d 285, 287 ......