Vogel v. Vogel
| Decision Date | 15 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 30084,30089,s. 30084 |
| Citation | 333 S.W.2d 306 |
| Parties | Gertrude M. VOGEL (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. Carl J. VOGEL (Defendant), Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Claude W McElwee, St. Louis, for appellant.
Lashly, Lashly & Miller, Grove G. Sweet, St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court overruling defendant's motion to quash an execution.
A detailed delineation of the facts would unduly extend this opinion, but a resume of them is necessary. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced by a decree of the St. Louis County Circuit Court on July 15, 1938. The decree provided for the payment of monthly alimony in the sum of $200. The defendant paid this sum up to January, 1948. He then defaulted in his payments necessitating plaintiff's filing of an affidavit on July 2, 1948, reciting prior payments and the default. Thereafter, on July 2, 1948, plaintiff caused an execution to be issued to the Sheriff of St. Louis County, and one issued to the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis. The file in the original divorce action contains these three entries, as well as the numbers given to executions; these numbers were 128358A for the execution delivered to the St. Louis County Sheriff, and 128358B for the execution delivered to the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis.
There are no further minute entries in the original file in relation to the executions, because the rules of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County required that executions be treated as separate cases, having the same number as the original case with a letter appended to the number indicating it was an execution. As previously set forth, this was done in both of these executions.
The transcript reveals that in garnishment proceeding No. 128358A the garnishee, being Normandy State Bank, paid $832.17 into court. The garnishee was allowed $10 for answering, and the balance of $822.17 was paid to the plaintiff on October 22, 1948, on order of the trial court.
In the other garnishment proceeding, No. 128358B, under date of October 29, 1948, a stipulation of dismissal was filed by the parties, the terms of which included the following: 'Payment of said sum of $51.18 is hereby acknowledged.' This stipulation was signed by J. M. Lashly, attorney for plaintiff, and Claude W. McElwee, attorney for defendant. All these entries are contained in various permanent records of the trial court, but not endorsed on the judgment in the original case.
The record before us shows that on or about November 2, 1948, plaintiff's attorney received a check for $600 made payable to plaintiff and signed by Marian K. Vogel, the present wife of the defendant, which check was accompanied by a letter of transmittal from defendant's attorney stating the check was in payment of back alimony to November 1, 1948.
The evidence reveals that for the month of December, 1948, and for each succeeding month up to June, 1956, plaintiff received a check for $200 signed by Marian K. Vogel. On several occasions during this period the alimony payments were delayed, requiring plaintiff's attorney to correspond with the defendant, Carl J. Vogel, calling the delay to his attention. In each instance, replies were received indicating knowledge on the part of the defendant of the payments being made to plaintiff by defendant's present wife. Some of these delayed payments were sent to plaintiff's attorney, and at least one check was the personalized check of the defendant Carl J. Vogel, but was signed by Marian K. Vogel.
The last payment received was a check signed by Marian K. Vogel payable to plaintiff, but mailed to plaintiff's attorney and forwarded by him to plaintiff. Neither the defendant nor anyone in his behalf made payment to the plaintiff for the month of June, 1956, nor any month thereafter.
On September 10, 1956, plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court asking that the court order the clerk to note and attest on the margin of the record of the original judgment her acknowledgment of payments made pursuant to said judgment. In addition, plaintiff filed an affidavit setting forth the payments in support of said motion.
Thereafter, on September 26, 1956, defendant filed a document styled 'Special Appearance of Defendant and Plea to the Jurisdiction.' The purport of this document was that the judgment was presumed paid because no scire facias was sued out to revive the judgment; nor was any payment entered on the record of the judgment. Further, that if the court granted the relief sought by plaintiff, it would deny defendant's constitutional rights.
The original court file contains a minute entry for July 29, 1957, by the court, that The same wording was on a yellow minute memorandum signed by the trial judge.
Plaintiff filed an affidavit acknowledging payment received pursuant to the original judgment, on August 2, 1957, in aid of execution, and this was noted in the minutes. The following day plaintiff sued out her execution directed to the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis.
On September 27, 1957, defendant filed his motion to quash the execution, which motion was tried to the court on November 22, 1957, and thereafter the court rendered its judgment on January 30, 1958, sustaining defendant's motion to quash in part and denying it in part, holding: --from which order defendant filed his notice of appeal on February 5, 1958.
The defendant's assignments of error are: (1) That the trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion to quash the execution because the judgment was entered on July 15, 1938, and was presumed paid and the debt satisfied, cancelled and extinguished by the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition of judgment without a scire facias having been issued to revive said judgment and without a payment having been made on said judgment and duly entered upon the record thereof within ten years from the date of the original rendition thereof. (2) That the order of the Circuit Court of July 29, 1957, dismissing plaintiff's motion to order the clerk to endorse payments on the record of the judgment, was a general judgment which determined and adjudicated that defendant did not make payments under said judgment prior to July 29, 1957, and is res adjudicata on the issue of whether payments were made by the defendant under said judgment prior to July 29, 1957, and, as all payments mentioned in plaintiff's affidavit, filed on August 2, 1957, are alleged to have been made prior to July 29, 1957, the judgment of July 29, 1957, is res adjudicata as to all payments mentioned in the affidavit under which Execution No. 29316 was issued. (3) That the issuance of execution without notice to the defendant was a denial of his constitutional rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S., and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. (4) That judgments for alimony are subject to Section 516.350 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. (5) That payments made to discharge garnishment proceedings are not voluntary and do not toll the running of Section 516.350, supra.
Defendant's assignments of error enumerated above, with the exception of No. 2 and No. 3 thereof, all pertain to the interpretation of Section 516.350 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The question raised in these points is whether the payments, made in the manner in which they were, destroyed the presumption of payment. The evidence clearly proves payment by the defendant up to the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Holt, In re
...S.W.2d 239 (Mo.1954); Mayes v. Mayes, 342 Mo. 401, 116 S.W.2d 1 (1938); Wardlow v. Denny, 579 S.W.2d 842 (Mo.App.1979); Vogel v. Vogel, 333 S.W.2d 306 (Mo.App.1960); Eubank v. Eubank, 29 S.W.2d 212 (Mo.App.1930); State ex rel. Meyer v. Buford, 18 S.W.2d 526 (Mo.App.1929). But see Walls v. W......
-
State v. Wynn
...356. A trial court may take judicial notice of its own records. Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Co., Mo., 351 S.W.2d 717, 721; Vogel v. Vogel, Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 306, 610. We affirmed defendant's conviction of rape on May 14, 1962, and overruled his motion for rehearing on June 11, 1962. See, 3......
-
Hoevelman v. Reorganized School Dist. R2 of Crawford County, 8797
...Mo.App., 427 S.W.2d 783, 784(2); Goad v. Mister Softee of Mississippi Valley, Inc., Mo.App., 380 S.W.2d 493, 495(1); Vogel v. Vogel, Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 306, 310(3); In re Smith, Mo.App., 331 S.W.2d 169, 171(4).4 See collection of cases in Annotation, Denial of Summary Judgment--Reviewabili......
-
Hardin v. Hardin
...own motion or at the request or suggestion of a party. Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Company, 351 S.W.2d 717, 721(5) (Mo.1961); Vogel v. Vogel, 333 S.W.2d 306, 310(6, 7) (Mo.App.1960); Munday v. Thielecke, 483 S.W.2d 679, 681--682(2) (Mo.App.1972); Hawkins v. Hawkins, 462 S.W.2d 818, 826 (10, ......