# Duncan v. Duncan

> Washington Supreme Court · August 29, 1946 · 25 Wash. 2d 843

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4001184

## Case

- **Full name:** Hazel Bervin Duncan, Respondent, v. James B. W. Duncan, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 29, 1946
- **Citations:** 25 Wash. 2d 843; 172 P.2d 210; 1946 Wash. LEXIS 444
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Simpson
- **Judges:** Simpson, Connelly, Steinert, Millard
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4001184

## Opinion text

Simpson, J.
(concurring in the result) — I am in accord with the conclusion reached by the majority. Appellant argues that the case of
Lockhart v. Lockhart,
145 Wash. 210 , 259 Pac. 385 , is in point and governs the decision in the case at bar. There is merit in his contention if the
Lockhart
case is allowed to remain as a part of the law of this state.
In that case, this court held that payment of alimony would not be continued where it had been paid in the large amount of nine thousand one hundred dollars, over a long period of years. Here, appellant has paid alimony for a considerable time in the amount of eight thousand dollars.
The rule announced in the
Lockhart
case has never been followed and was distinguished and criticized in
Bartow v. Bartow,
12 Wn. (2d) 408, 121 P. (2d) 962 . It is not in accord with the settled law in this state, which is to the effect that payments of alimony will not be changed except in those cases in which the conditions are substantially different than at the time of the entry of the decree of divorce.
In the interests of uniformity of decision, the
Lockhart
case should be overruled.
Blake, J., concurs with Simpson, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4001184. Public record. Not legal advice.