Brown v. Brown

D.C. Circuit

Brown v. Brown

205 F.2d 720, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 319, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1953

Docket11579

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 F.2d 720 (Brown v. Brown) 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

Brown v. Brown, 205 F.2d 720, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 319, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

Pincite

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F.2d 720, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 319, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-cadc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack