From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Posnick v. Posnick

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jul 7, 1955
225 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1955)

Summary

In Posnick, the court, without discussing the issue presently under consideration, simply ordered that the provision of the decree terminating maintenance upon the husband's payment of certain debts "was erroneous and should terminate."

Summary of this case from Carter v. Carter

Opinion

Nos. 12296, 12297.

Argued May 6, 1955.

Decided July 7, 1955.

Mr. Jean M. Boardman, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. James E. Faust, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants in No. 12,296 and appellees in No. 12,297.

Mr. W. Cameron Burton, Washington, D.C., for appellee in No. 12,296 and appellant in No. 12,297.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.


Mrs. Posnick brought suit in the District Court against her husband, seeking an allowance for maintenance and the payment of sums alleged to be due her. Mr. Posnick resisted both prayers. As to the latter demand, he urged that his wife's claims arose out of a business partnership between them, which had been wound up and terminated by agreement. The District Court heard the case without a jury, and found for the wife. In No. 12,296, the husband appeals. We think there was no error affecting substantial rights. The settlement on which the husband relies was made at a time when the wife was seeking to preserve the marriage relationship, and before the husband had left her. We think the entire transaction as revealed in the record was vitiated by coercion and by non-disclosure amounting to deceit. The District Court had jurisdiction to set aside the settlement and determine the extent of the wife's property rights. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 193, 188 F.2d 31; Reilly v. Reilly, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 182 F.2d 108, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 865, 71 S.Ct. 90, 95 L.Ed. 632. We think its disposition of the matter was justified on the record before it.

A corporation controlled by the husband, which was made a defendant as to the wife's property claims, joins in the appeal.

In No. 12,297, the wife appeals from Paragraph 4 of the judgment, which provided that upon payment by the husband of the amounts found to be due the wife, the allowance for maintenance made elsewhere in the judgment should terminate. We think this provision was erroneous and should be eliminated. The wife's claim for amounts owing to her is separate from her claim to maintenance. To what extent and at what time she will be able to collect the amounts due her under the judgment, and what her need for maintenance may then be, are matters about which we cannot speculate. Changed circumstances, of course, would entitle the party adversely affected to apply for relief in the District Court with regard to the amount of maintenance. See Bartlett v. Bartlett, 1954, 94 U.S.App. D.C. 190, 221 F.2d 508, and cases cited at footnote 18. The District Court should be free to decide such an application, if and when one is made, in the light of all the circumstances then existing. Keezer, Marriage and Divorce § 657 (3d ed. 1946); Bernsdorff v. Bernsdorff, 1906, 26 App.D.C. 520.

The judgment should be

Modified by striking Paragraph 4 thereof, and as so modified. affirmed.


Summaries of

Posnick v. Posnick

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jul 7, 1955
225 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1955)

In Posnick, the court, without discussing the issue presently under consideration, simply ordered that the provision of the decree terminating maintenance upon the husband's payment of certain debts "was erroneous and should terminate."

Summary of this case from Carter v. Carter

In Posnick v. Posnick, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 199, 225 F.2d 37, 38 (1955), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed an order which provided that the husband pay a debt he owed his wife and further provided that, upon final payment of the debt, "the allowance for maintenance made elsewhere in the judgment should terminate."

Summary of this case from Joel v. Joel

In Posnick, the court struck only the time limitation on the order, leaving open the possibility of future modification if warranted.

Summary of this case from Joel v. Joel

In Posnick v. Posnick, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 225 F.2d 37 (1955) (Posnick I), the court held to be erroneous so much of a divorce decree as provided for termination of periodic alimony payments when the wife's share in a property settlement was actually turned over to her.

Summary of this case from King v. King
Case details for

Posnick v. Posnick

Case Details

Full title:David POSNICK, Bonat's Cafe, Incorporated, Appellants, v. Ethel POSNICK…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jul 7, 1955

Citations

225 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
96 U.S. App. D.C. 198

Citing Cases

Joel v. Joel

We agree. In Posnick v. Posnick, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 199, 225 F.2d 37, 38 (1955), the United States Court of…

Posnick v. Posnick

This appeal followed. See Posnick v. Posnick, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 225 F.2d 37; 100 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 241 F.2d…