Backy v. Backy

4 Citing cases

  1. Avery v. Avery

    10 Cal.App.3d 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 28 times
    In Avery, the plaintiff wife brought an action in California to establish as a California judgment a Missouri divorce decree that contained an award of alimony that husband had not paid. (Avery v. Avery, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 527, 89 Cal.Rptr. 195.)

    Section 452.080, Revised Statutes, Missouri (1959), says the court in its discretion may decree "alimony in gross," and the authorities hold that it be made payable in installments. ( Backy v. Backy (Mo. App. 1962) 355 S.W.2d 389, 394.) Similar to section 139, California Civil Code, section 452.075, Revised Statutes, Missouri (1959) provides for termination of alimony upon the wife's remarriage; however, the language of the statute does not extend such termination to alimony in gross.

  2. Barker v. Barker

    94 N.M. 162 (N.M. 1980)   Cited 16 times

    If anything has been omitted from the judgment which is necessarily or properly a part of it, and which was intended and understood to be a part of it, but failed to be incorporated in it through the negligence or inadvertence of the court or counsel, or the clerk, the omission may be supplied by an amendment, even after the term.See also Wilson v. Wilson, 109 Cal.App.2d 673, 241 P.2d 281 (1952); Parker v. Spurlin, 227 Ga. 183, 179 S.E.2d 251 (1971); Alvis Hotel, Inc. v. Alvis Hotel of Monroe, Inc., 244 La. 149, 149 So.2d 199 (1963), aff'd mem, 150 So.2d 769 (1963); Backy v. Backy, 355 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.Ct.App. 1962); Marino v. Nolan, 29 A.D.2d 541, 285 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1967); Home Indemnity Company v. Muncy, 449 S.W.2d 312 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969); Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. Local Union 976, Etc., 16 Utah 2d 85, 396 P.2d 47 (1964); Teasley v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 376, 49 S.E.2d 604 (1948); In Re Gibson's Estate, 7 Wis.2d 506, 96 N.W.2d 859 (1959). Assuming arguendo that the July 1, 1977, order was final and that the order of December 21, 1978, does something more by way of amendment than to supply necessary or proper parts thereof which were negligently or inadvertently omitted, there is still authority to sustain the validity of the December 21, 1978, order and the court's jurisdiction to enter it at that late date.

  3. Hill v. Hill

    443 S.W.2d 192 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    The alimony in gross award does establish a fixed obligation to pay the sum of $20,000, although it is payable in installments. Carl v. Carl, Mo.App., 284 S.W.2d 41; Backy v. Backy, Mo.App., 355 S.W.2d 389. However, in his brief, appellant has not sought to be relieved of all obligation to pay alimony to his former wife.

  4. Laney v. Laney

    535 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    On this appeal, appellant's contention is that the alimony award in the decree of divorce was either a property settlement or alimony in gross, neither of which would be subject to modification. That neither contractual support and maintenance ( LaFountain v. LaFountain, 523 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App. 1975); Goulding v. Goulding, 497 S.W.2d 842 (Mo.App. 1973)) nor alimony in gross ( Backy v. Backy, 355 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.App. 1962); Carl v. Carl, 284 S.W.2d 41 (Mo.App. 1955)) is properly subject to judicial modification, once the obligation therefor has become final, is not questioned. The problem is whether or not the respondent's obligation in this case is within either of these categories. Insofar as the contractual obligation argument is concerned, it is clear from the transcript quoted above that no property settlement agreement was presented to the court for its approval.