Opinion

Brown v. Brown

  • 205 F.2d 720
  • 92 U.S. App. D.C. 319
  • 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
Jun 11, 1953
Status
Published
On the bench
Edgerton, Fahy, Per Curiam, Washington
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 73.1%

relying on Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 380-81, 193 F.2d 677, 683-84 (1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 557, 96 L.Ed. 702 (1952)

How later courts described this case

  • relying on Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 380-81, 193 F.2d 677, 683-84 (1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 557, 96 L.Ed. 702 (1952)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373 , 380, 193 F.2d 677, 684 , certiorari denied, 342 U.S. 944 , 72 S.Ct. 557 , 96 L.Ed. 702 , this court held that the District Court “cannot modify or remit installments of alimony after they have become due by the terms of the original judgment which ordered their payment.”

The same principle applies to payments a husband has been ordered to make to his wife for the maintenance of their minor child. In the present case the court found that after the maintenance order was entered, and before the appellant husband moved to have it modified, the child was emancipated by being allowed to leave school and go to work. The court correctly held that it had no authority to modify or remit payments that became due after the child was emancipated and before the motion was filed.

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.