Walls v. Walls, 46984
| Decision Date | 09 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 46984,46984 |
| Citation | 673 S.W.2d 450 |
| Parties | Mildred WALLS, Appellant, v. Thurman WALLS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joseph A. Lott, Clayton, for appellant.
Kenneth R. Singer, St. Louis, for respondent.
Wife appeals from the circuit court's January 24, 1983 order denying her motion for execution and garnishment. She based this on the original decree of divorce entered February 27, 1969. That decree awarded her alimony and child support, no part of which had been paid.
This is wife's second motion for execution. Her first motion was denied by the circuit court on the ground her original judgment had lapsed under the 10-year statute of limitations. That denial of execution was affirmed on appeal. See Walls v. Walls, 620 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App.1981).
Wife's present motion for execution on the same original 1969 judgment is bottomed on a 1982 change in the statutory period of limitation, RSMo. 516.350.2. Thereby the ten-year limitation period no longer begins at the inception of the decree; instead it begins "ten years after a periodic payment is due."
It is a basic principle that statutes of limitation do not extinguish a cause of action but merely bar its remedy. Since statutes of limitation are legislatively imposed they may be legislatively changed.
The new statute of limitations, Section 516.350 RSMo. 1982, effective August 31, 1982, excludes from the ten-year bar "any judgment ... awarding ... maintenance which mandates the making of payments over a period of time ..." That is the very nature of a judgment for spousal support.
Accordingly we hold that plaintiff-wife's maintenance judgment was then renewed by the cited statute. Her plea for alimony should therefore have been granted for all sums...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shockley v. Harry Sander Realty Co., Inc.
...1353, 1357 (8th Cir.1979). The statute of limitations for a garnishment action is ten years, as provided in § 516.350. Walls v. Walls, 673 S.W.2d 450, 450 (Mo.App.1984); Pourney v. Seabaugh, 604 S.W.2d 646, 649-50 (Mo.App.1980). It follows that the ten-year limitation applies in a case seek......
-
Coleman v. Coleman, 58745
...period would run, not from the date of the judgment, but from the time that a particular periodic payment was due. Walls v. Walls, 673 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Mo.App.1984); In re Marriage of Holt, 635 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. banc In this case husband made a child support payment to wife through the Circui......
-
Lopez v. TIG Indem. Co.
...years, as provided in § 516.350.” Shockley v. Harry Sander Realty Co., Inc., 771 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Mo. App. 1989) (citing Walls v. Walls, 673 S.W.2d 450, 450 (Mo. App. 1984); Pourney v. Seabaugh, 604 S.W.2d 646, 649-50 (Mo. App. 1980)). Here, the Gonzalezes adequately allege a claim for equi......
-
Maddox v. Truman Medical Center, Inc.
...Peters, 631 S.W.2d 938, 946 (Mo.App.1982). They may preclude a remedy, but they do not extinguish the underlying right. Walls v. Walls, 673 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Mo.App.1984). Thus, though the running of the statute on the injured spouse's claim bars his remedy, it does not render his claim inva......