Weaver v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 27 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 140,140 |
| Citation | 13 Md.App. 283,282 A.2d 509 |
| Parties | Lewyn WEAVER v. Mildred (Weaver) GARRETT. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Walter I. Seif, Jr., Baltimore, with whom were Gordon & Goodman, Baltimore, on the brief for appellant.
Martin B. Levinson, Baltimore, with whom were Cweiber & Edelstein, Baltimore, on the brief for appellee.
Argued before THOMPSON, POWERS, and GILBERT, JJ.
Lewyn Weaver, Jr. (Weaver), appellant, and Mildred Garrett (Garrett), appellee, were divorced on April 13, 1966. By the terms of the decree of divorce Weaver was required to pay unto Garrett $10.00 per week for the support and maintenance of each of four minor children. When the petition to cite Weaver for contempt was heard before a Master in Chancery, Lucy Ann Garvey, Weaver was $6810.00 in arrears. A total arrearage of $4960.00 was for the years 1968, 1969 and half of 1970, and $1850.00 of the arrearage was accumulated in 1966 and 1967. Both parties to this case had remarried prior to the filing of the Petition to Cite for Contempt.
The record discloses that Garrett's counsel wrote to Weaver on February 24, 1970, as follows:
'The time has now come for your children to be legally adopted by their step father, Mr. William Garrett. It is necessary at this time for you to sign a waiver which must be filed in the court.
Thereafter, Weaver obtained the services of an attorney. On April 24, 1970, counsel for Garrett wrote to Weaver's counsel,
'I received this date a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Garrett who stated that they will positively not sign any release waiving the obligation for the arrears of your client Mr. Weaver until he has executed the Petition for Adoption. I believe you have the aforementioned in your file, if not Mr. Weaver can give you same.
In early June, 1970, Garrett's attorney again wrote to Weaver's counsel:
'I have just spoken with my clients, * * * and at this time they are not prepared to file the Petition for Adoption due to the fact that they have to assign a waiver disallowing Mr. Weaver any right to be brought into court for arrears owed. As I told you in our last conversation I would not file the Petition for Adoption under these circumstances. Mrs. Garrett tells me that she would like to file the Petition for Adoption and would not press the issues of arrears as she would like for her daughter to make that decision on her own.
'I have no other alternative at this point, Walter, than to file Petition for Contempt based on the $7,000.00 arrears due in owing Mrs. Garrett for the support of four minor children.'
The document executed by Weaver was not made a part of the record.
A 'Petition for Contempt Citation' was filed on June 17, 1970, and the 'Answer' thereto was timely. The matter was heard before the Master on July 6, 1970.
The Master concluded that Weaver was in arrears and recommended a monetary judgment of $1850.00 against him for the years 1966 and 1967. She also recommended 'a reasonable lump sum payment on account of the arrears due' and that the sum of $20.00 per week be paid on the arrearage in addition to the sum of $40.00 per week ordered by the April 13, 1966 decree.
Weaver filed 'Exceptions' to the Master's recommendations. On April 5, 1971, Judge Prendergast overruled the Exceptions, ordered that a lump sum payment of $1,000.00 be made within 10 days, adopted the Master's recommendation as to the increased weekly payments, and rejected the monetary judgment. From Judge Prendergast's findings, Weaver appeals to this Court.
Weaver contends that the Chancellor erred in finding that any arrearage was due from Weaver to Garrett. Simply stated, Weaver says that when he executed the 'Consent for Adoption' he undertook some act or forbearance that was or could be detrimental to him, and beneficial to Garrett. This, Weaver says, is a valuable consideration moving from him to Garrett, and thus a valid contract arose. According to Weaver, the letter of April 24, 1970 from Garrett's attorney to Weaver's counsel constituted a complete release inuring to Weaver's benefit the moment Weaver signed the 'Consent for Adoption.' 1
Appellant refers us ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mueller
...(1977); Jones v. Endslow, 23 Md.App. 578, 328 A.2d 339 (1974); Stern v. Horner, 22 Md.App. 421, 324 A.2d 134 (1974); Weaver v. Garrett, 13 Md.App. 283, 282 A.2d 509 (1971); Bregel v. Julier, 253 Md. 103, 251 A.2d 891 (1969); Raible v. Raible, 242 Md. 586, 219 A.2d 777 (1966); Smolin v. Firs......
-
Kimble v. Kimble
...form of contract between the parents, nor change of the domestic circumstances of either of them, may effect."); Weaver v. Garrett, 13 Md.App. 283, 287, 282 A.2d 509, 511 (1971) ("Child support is not a debt, but a duty."); Sayre v. Sayre, 129 Mich.App. 249, 252, 341 N.W.2d 491, 492 (1983) ......
-
Sauerhoff v. Hearst Corporation
...them; thus, it is likely that he would not be required to pay child support after separation or divorce. Cf. Weaver v. Garrett, 13 Md. App. 283, 286 n. 1, 282 A.2d 509 (1971). Finally, those payments, if required, might or might not exceed the expenses Sauerhoff bore during his marriage whi......
-
Green v. Green
...to collect it may become barred by the doctrine of laches. Eckard v. Gardner, 255 Md. 171, 257 A.2d 174 (1969); Weaver v. Garrett, 13 Md.App. 283, 287, 282 A.2d 509 (1971). Laches, of course, is an equitable defense; its application is not precise and automatic. In judging whether it applie......