Wedel v. Wedel
| Decision Date | 13 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 43625,43625 |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 869 |
| Parties | Betty Jean WEDEL, Appellant, v. Wayne Joseph WEDEL, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David L. Baylard, Clayton, for appellant.
Harold E. Horsley, Jr., Valley Park, for respondent.
The marriage of appellant (mother) and respondent (father) was dissolved on June 5, 1974. The mother was given custody of the parties' two children and the father was ordered to pay child support of $25.00 per week for each child. The children remained with the mother for about two months, until August 1974, at which time the mother placed them with her mother and grandparents. The maternal grandmother and great-grandparents remained the children's sole source of care and support until the father obtained their custody in March 1979 through a modification of the dissolution decree. The children have ever since lived with the father.
The present case began in April 1980, when the mother sought a garnishment on execution to collect from the father a total of $10,425.00 as unpaid child support. The father moved to quash the execution and garnishment, primarily on the ground that he and the mother allegedly made a written agreement shortly before the 1979 decree modification under which the mother waived payment of all past due child support. That claim was not determined by the trial court, and is not pursued on this appeal. The father also alleged the mother's failure to reside with or financially support the children, to which we have already alluded. The trial court sustained the motion on the latter ground, holding that the mother had thereby waived her right to enforce the decree's child support provisions. The mother appeals. We review the order under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) which requires us to sustain the order "... unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. * * *" Karleskint v. Karleskint, 575 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.1978). We reverse.
Our decision rests on familiar principles. First ... Our courts have ... for a long time recognized that past due child support owing by the divorced husband to the former wife pursuant to a court order for child support and maintenance incorporated into the divorce decree constitutes a debt of the husband to the former wife ... and (accrued and unpaid installments) become judgments in favor of the former wife .... (authorities omitted)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Sanders, 16828
...S.W.2d 632 (Mo.App.1980), Tudor v. Tudor, 617 S.W.2d 610 (Mo.App.1981), Buttrey v. Buttrey, 622 S.W.2d 708 (Mo.App.1981), Wedel v. Wedel, 624 S.W.2d 869 (Mo.App.1981), Holt v. Holt, 662 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.App.1983) and Loveland v. Henry, 700 S.W.2d 846 (Mo.App.1985)." Grommet at The Supreme Cou......
-
Grommet v. Grommet
...S.W.2d 632 (Mo.App.1980), Tudor v. Tudor, 617 S.W.2d 610 (Mo.App.1981), Buttrey v. Buttrey, 622 S.W.2d 708 (Mo.App.1981), Wedel v. Wedel, 624 S.W.2d 869 (Mo.App.1981), Holt v. Holt, 662 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.App.1983) and Loveland v. Henry, 700 S.W.2d 846 (Mo.App.1985). Perhaps based upon the two ......
-
Warner v. Warner, 54722
...Kan. 447, Syl. p 2, 479 P.2d 823 (1971). Missouri law is the same. Barbara v. Charles, 632 S.W.2d 92, 93 (Mo.App.1982); Wedel v. Wedel, 624 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Mo.App.1981). And cf. In re Marriage of Holt, 635 S.W.2d 335 (Mo.1982). Thus as to past due installments what was registered was a ser......
-
Barbara v. Charles, s. 12336
...evidencing such purpose and so consistent with the intention to waive that no other reasonable explanation is possible. Wedel v. Wedel, 624 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Mo.App.1981). The sole reason stated in Charles' motion to quash as to why, except for January 1981, he should be excused from making ......