White v. Held
| Decision Date | 15 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 28891,28891 |
| Citation | 269 S.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | WHITE v. HELD. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
H. L. C. Weier, Hillsboro, for appellant.
Dearing & Matthes and M. C. Matthes, Hillsboro, for respondent.
WOLEF, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a judgment finding the appellant in contempt of court for failing and refusing to comply with a decree of the court. The decree which the appellant was charged with refusing to obey is a modified decree of divorce directing that appellant's former husband should have temporary custody of their minor child from June 1 to August 30 of each year. The decree directs the manner in which the child is to be placed in the father's custody and when appellant refused to comply with it she was cited for contempt. Upon finding her in contempt the court sentenced her to the county jail until she should deliver the child to her former husband.
Betty Held White was formerly Mrs. Betty Held, the wife of L. B. Held. In January of 1949 she was granted a divorce and was awarded custody of their infant daughter, subject to the right of Held to visit with the child. In March of 1952 Held filed a motion to modify the decree and this was heard on October 2, 1952. In the same month that the motion to modify was filed Betty Held married a man named White and while the motion was pending she moved to the state of Washington where she resided until January, 1953. She was represented at the hearing on the motion by counsel. The motion to modify was sustained and the court entered the following order:
The appellant was informed by her lawyer that the decree had been modified and he told her the terms of the modification.
In January of 1953 Betty Held White returned to the home of her parents in Herculaneum, Missouri, and she and her child lived there, as White, who was in the Army, had been sent to Germany.
On June 1, 1953, Held went to the Jefferson County Welfare Office but his child was not delivered there. He consulted his lawyer and after talking to the appellant's lawyer agreed to wait forty-eight hours. On June 3, he went back to the Jefferson County Welfare Office with the same results; the child was not there. On June 12, he filed with the circuit court a petition for an order directed to Betty Held White and her parents to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court.
The order to show cause was issued and the appellant filed her return which contained an allegation that Held had failed to make the payments of $8.50 weekly required of him under the decree of October 2, 1952. It also alleged that the decree did not direct the appellant to do anything and that no copy of it had ever been served upon her.
There was a partial hearing of the matter on June 29 when the parents of the appellant were present but appellant's counsel stated that she was prevented by illness from attending court at that time. After hearing some testimony the matter was adjourned until July 13 and in the interim Betty Held White was served with a certified copy of the decree. After a further partial hearing the cause was passed to July 24 for the taking of additional testimony.
Held testified about his unsuccessful efforts to obtain custody of the child for the period mentioned in the decree, and stated that he was then and had been willing at all times to pay the amounts awarded for the child's support but that checks mailed to his wife came back with a notation on the envelopes that the mail had been refused. Three of these envelopes and checks were offered in evidence.
The appellant testified that she had undergone an operation and that while she was in the hospital she directed her parents not to turn over the child to anyone under any circumstances. She stated that after her return from the hospital she had refused the request of a deputy sheriff to take the child to the welfare office. She said that she had been informed by her counsel that the decree had been modified upon Held's motion, but when she got the information she was in the state of Washington. So she went to a local lawyer and was informed by him that she would not have to comply with the order of the court. She also testified that she had received no support money from Held and when shown the returned envelopes in which checks had been sent to her she said that they were returned at her direction as she did not wish to receive any letters from Held. She said, however, that if Held paid all of the amount due under the court's decree she would not comply with the decree, because she did not think Held's home was a fit place to take the child. She stated on several occasions throughout the testimony that she had no intention of complying with the decree of the court.
It is contended that the court should have refused to consider the citation for contempt because Held had not made the payments directed by the decree and that under the general principles of equity he who seeks equitable relief must do equity. A discussion of the application of the maxim, 'He who seeks equity must do equity', as it may relate to the situation before us, would serve no useful purpose, for it is clear from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G v. Souder
...Mo., 244 S.W.2d 91, 97(10); State ex inf. Crow v. Shepherd, supra, 177 Mo. loc. cit. 218-228, 76 S.W. loc. cit. 83-86(1); White v. Held, Mo.App., 269 S.W.2d 125, 128(3).7 State ex inf. Crow v. Shepherd, supra, 177 Mo. loc. cit. 229, 76 S.W. loc. cit. 86(8); Ex parte Clark, supra, 208 Mo. lo......
-
Mote v. Mote, 20025
...failure of either party to carry out such orders or commands the trial court may punish the offending party for contempt. See White v. Held, Mo.App., 269 S.W.2d 125. Judgment All the Justices concur. ...
-
Redifer v. Redifer, 46034
...is to insure that a party is fully informed of a court order before being held in contempt for violating that order. White v. Held, 269 S.W.2d 125, 127-28 (Mo.App.1954). In this case, wife clearly had notice of the child custody provisions of the dissolution decree because she signed the se......
-
Section 26 Knowledge of Order or Decree
...Fireproofing Corp. v. Bronska, 553 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. App. E.D. 1977); R— v. Souder, 305 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. App. S.D. 1957); White v. Held, 269 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 1954). Such knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence, but the circumstantial evidence must be “consistent with a......