Walls v. Walls, 42939
| Decision Date | 12 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 42939,42939 |
| Citation | 620 S.W.2d 11 |
| Parties | Mildred L. WALLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thurman WALLS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joseph A. Lott, Clayton, for petitioner-appellant.
Kenneth R. Singer, St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by a former wife from the trial court's order quashing her execution and garnishment of respondent ex-husband's wages to enforce child support and alimony awards. Respondent moved to quash the execution and garnishment because the awards in the parties' divorce decree were presumed paid and satisfied pursuant to § 516.350, RSMo 1978. The trial court granted respondent's motion to quash after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court's order is affirmed.
Appellant's sole contention upon appeal is that the trial court erred in quashing the execution and garnishment filed December 5, 1979 because § 516.350, RSMo 1978 does not, as contended by respondent, bar appellant's enforcement of the parties' divorce decree, entered February 27, 1969. Section 516.350, RSMo 1978, provides that every judgment, order or decree:
"shall be presumed to be paid and satisfied after the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition thereof, or if the same has been revived upon personal service duly had upon the defendant or defendants therein, then after ten years from and after such revival, or in case a payment has been made on such judgment, order or decree, and duly entered upon the record thereof, after the expiration of ten years from the last payment so made, and after the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition or revival upon personal service, or from the date of the last payment, such judgment shall be conclusively presumed to be paid, and no execution, order or process shall issue thereon, nor shall any suit be brought, had or maintained thereon for any purpose whatever."
Section 516.350, RSMo 1978, and predecessor statutes have consistently been held applicable to judgments for periodic alimony and child support payments. Pourney v. Seabaugh, 604 S.W.2d 646, 649-650(1, 2) (Mo.App.1980). The judgment is presumed to have been paid and satisfied ten years after the judgment was rendered unless the judgment has been revived or partial payment has been made according to the terms of § 516.350, RSMo 1978, within the ten year period. Pourney v. Seabaugh, supra.
Appellant contends she rebutted the statutory presumption of payment by introducing uncontroverted evidence of respondent's payments upon the judgment within ten years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Holt, In re
...have held that the statutory period begins to run when the order for installment payments is entered. 1 See, e.g., id.; Walls v. Walls, 620 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App.1981); Pourney v. Seabaugh, 604 S.W.2d 646 (Mo.App.1980). These and other cases, however, have failed to recognize the peculiar natur......
-
Foley v. Foley, WD
...the case of judgments mandating periodic payments, begins when the judgment is entered and not when payments fall due." Walls v. Walls, 620 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo.App.1981). Holt implicitly recognized the basic injustice and unfairness, as well as the public policy inconsistency of shifting the ......
-
Coleman v. Coleman, 58745
...Before the 1982 amendment to § 516.350 RSMo 1986, wife would not have been entitled to missed child support payments. Walls v. Walls, 620 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo.App.1981). The statute formerly established a ten year limitation period measured from the date of the judgment. Id. In this case the d......
-
Sparks v. Trantham
...is distinguishable from the instant case. In Walls there had been a prior adjudication that the judgment had lapsed. See Walls v. Walls, 620 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App.1981). The amendment to the statute could not be used to renew an already lapsed judgment. 673 S.W.2d at This court has applied the ......