Alexander Kirk v. Dorothy Garnett Kirk

D.C. Circuit

Alexander Kirk v. Dorothy Garnett Kirk

263 F.2d 271, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4502

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1959

Docket14648

StatusPublished

This text of 263 F.2d 271 (Alexander Kirk v. Dorothy Garnett Kirk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander Kirk v. Dorothy Garnett Kirk, 263 F.2d 271, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4502 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties, who wore then husband and wife, executed a separation agreement March 20, 1952, by the terms of which the husband agreed to pay the wife a certain sum each month while both remained alive, and until the wife’s remarriage if a divorce should be obtained. This agreement also provided, inter alia, “That the Husband shall pay any and all Counsel fees incurred by either party in connection with this settlement agreement or in connection with any divorce or separation proceeding which may be instituted in the future.”

In December, 1954, the wife sued in the Municipal Court to recover arrearag-es in payments under the contract and was awarded judgment in the sum of $2,975 with interest and costs, which the husband paid. In that action she incurred counsel fees in the sum of $1,075 which the husband has not paid.

In October, 1957, Mrs. Kirk sued in the United States District Court to recover the amount of her fees incurred in the Municipal Court action and the further sums of $6,600 in additional ar-rearages and $1,000 in counsel fees in the new action. She was awarded summary judgment for $5,300, being the arrearag-es claimed less a payment of $1,300, plus *272 interest and costs. She was also awarded judgment for attorney’s fees in both actions, the amount to be determined by the Auditor.

The husband appeals, arguing that the fees claimed were not “in connection with this settlement agreement * * We think the order of the District Court was clearly correct.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The parties, who wore then husband and wife, executed a separation agreement March 20, 1952, by the terms of which the husband agreed to pay the wife a certain sum each month while both remained alive, and until the wife’s remarriage if a divorce should be obtained. This agreement also provided, inter alia, “That the Husband shall pay any and all Counsel fees incurred by either party in connection with this settlement agreement or in connection with any divorce or separation proceeding which may be instituted in the future.”

In December, 1954, the wife sued in the Municipal Court to recover arrearag-es in payments under the contract and was awarded judgment in the sum of $2,975 with interest and costs, which the husband paid. In that action she incurred counsel fees in the sum of $1,075 which the husband has not paid.

In October, 1957, Mrs. Kirk sued in the United States District Court to recover the amount of her fees incurred in the Municipal Court action and the further sums of $6,600 in additional ar-rearages and $1,000 in counsel fees in the new action. She was awarded summary judgment for $5,300, being the arrearag-es claimed less a payment of $1,300, plus *272 interest and costs. She was also awarded judgment for attorney’s fees in both actions, the amount to be determined by the Auditor.

The husband appeals, arguing that the fees claimed were not “in connection with this settlement agreement * * We think the order of the District Court was clearly correct.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F.2d 271, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-kirk-v-dorothy-garnett-kirk-cadc-1959.