Thompson v. Kite, 47257

Decision Date11 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 47257,47257
Citation214 Kan. 700,522 P.2d 327
PartiesAlfred THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Joyce Thompson KITE et al., Appellees.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. The goal sought by the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, K.S.A.1972 Supp. 23-451 et seq., was to provide a prompt, expeditious way of enforcing the duty to support minor children without getting the parties involved in other complex, collateral issues.

2. The remedies provided under the act are in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies.

3. The purpose of K.S.A.1972 Supp. 23-481 was to enable parties to participate freely in reciprocal proceedings without exposing themselves to the danger of submitting to the jurisdiction of the responding court in other independent proceedings involving collateral matters.

John S. May, Atchison, argued the cause, and Charles M. Tuley, Atchison, was with him on the brief for the appellant.

Maurice P. O'Keefe, Jr., of O'Keefe, Ball, O'Keefe & Lacey, Atchison, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellees.

PRAGER, Justice:

This is an action brought by the plaintiff-appellant, Alfred Thompson, for injunctive relief and to recover damages from the defendants-appellees, Joyce Thompson Kite, Donald Kite, her husband, and Charles W. Davidson, her father. All of the defendants are residents of the state of Missouri. This action was the result of continuing problems of child support and rights of visitation which developed out of a divorce case in Buchanan county, Missouri. The essential facts are not really in dispute and are as follows: On February 24, 1958, Joyce Thompson, now Joyce Thompson Kite, was granted a divorce from Alfred Thompson. At that time Joyce was with child but the circuit court made no order providing for the custody or support of the unborn child. On February 4, 1959, following the birth of Regina Thompson, the Missouri court modified its original divorce decree, granting custody of the child to the mother and ordered the father to pay support at the rate of $12 per week. No visitation order was made at that time. Thereafter Alfred fell in arrears on his child support. On May 9, 1960, Joyce filed an action under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in the circuit court of Buchanan county, Missouri, as initiating court. That court certified that case to the district court of Atchison county as responding court where the case was docketed on May 18, 1960. We will refer to that action as the reciprocal action. On May 29, 1960, Joyce and Alfred appeared in the reciprocal action and by agreement Alfred was ordered to pay the amount of $10 per week as support for Regina. The case then lay dormant until a motion to show cause was filed by the mother on February 17, 1970. On July 24, 1970, it was determined that the back child support had been paid into court by Alfred and it was ordered disbursed to the mother. Further delinquencies in child support payments occurred and on October 5, 1970, Joyce filed another motion to determine arrearages and to increase child support. The parties attempted to settle their differences and entered into an agreement which was incorporated in the judgment of the court entered on November 24, 1970. That judgment approved the agreement of the parties and ordered that Alfred pay $15 a week as child support and include the minor child as a beneficiary in his present medical and hospitalization insurance. The decree further provided that Alfred should have certain visitation privileges. The next activity in the case was in July 9, 1971, when Joyce filed another motion to show cause. After various continuances, on January 24, 1972, an order was entered amending visitation rights and dismissing the citation to show cause on the basis that Alfred had again become current on child support payments. In the fall of 1972 Joyce apparently concluded that the child support order was inadequate. She filed a motion in the original divorce case in Buchanan county, Missouri, to modify the decree by increasing child support. Alfred obviously resented the filing of that motion. On September 15, 1972, he filed an independent action for injunctive relief and for damages which is presently before the court. On October 18, 1972, the circuit court of Buchanan county entered its order in the original divorce case increasing child support payments to $25 per week and providing that Alfred should have rights of visitation with the minor child at all reasonable times to be exercised in the home of Joyce and her present husband, Donald Kite, in Kansas City, Missouri.

In his petition for injunctive relief and damages, Alfred Thompson as plaintiff alleged that in October of 1970 he and Joyce Thompson Kite entered into an agreement that the child support should be raised from $10 to $15 per week and that he should be afforded rights of visitation at specified periods. He alleged that at the time of the making of the agreement Joyce had no intention of allowing plaintiff reasonable rights of visitation and that she had violated the same. Plaintiff further alleged that the agreement had been confirmed and ratified in the reciprocal proceedings by the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Wornkey v. Wornkey
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • February 4, 1988
    ...rule, a proceeding under URESA is an independent action to determine and enforce a duty of support. K.S.A. 23-453. Thompson v. Kite, 214 Kan. 700, 703, 522 P.2d 327 (1974). A responding court must "conform its support order to the amount allowed in the other action" only if the URESA petiti......
  • State of Fla., Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Petit v. Breeden, 72626
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1995
    ...The purpose of the URESA is to improve and extend the enforcement of duties of support by reciprocal legislation. Thompson v. Kite, 214 Kan. 700, 703, 522 P.2d 327 (1974). URESA contemplates the enforcement of support obligations, even where the duty of support has not yet been judicially e......
  • Gentzel v. Williams
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 1998
    ...used as procedural mechanisms for the establishment, modification, and enforcement of child and spousal support obligations. See Thompson v. Kite, 214 Kan. 700, Syl. p 2, 522 P.2d 327 (1974). Under URESA, a state had jurisdiction to establish, vacate, or modify an obligor's support obligati......
  • Lichtenstein v. Barbanel, No. 2008-SC-000661-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • May 20, 2010
    ...and expeditiously enforce the duty of support without allowing complex collateral issues to become involved.” See Thompson v. Kite, 214 Kan. 700, 522 P.2d 327 (1974); Paredes v. Paredes, 118 Ill.App.3d 27, 73 Ill.Dec. 765, 454 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (1983) (“The primary purpose of URESA is to se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT