Harmstone v. Harmstone

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Harmstone v. Harmstone

165 A.2d 491, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 268

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 1960

Docket2613

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 A.2d 491 (Harmstone v. Harmstone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harmstone v. Harmstone, 165 A.2d 491, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 268 (D.C. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

ROVER, Chief Judge.

The appellee wife filed a complaint for maintenance for the four-year-old son of the parties. The complaint alleged that she was a resident of nearby Maryland and that the husband was a resident of the District of Columbia. The husband’s answer admitted these allegations of residence. After a hearing, at which both parties testified, the court awarded permanent custody of the child to the mother, subject to visitation rights by the husband, ordered maintenance of $150 per month for the child and allowed the wife’s attorney $300 counsel fee.

Although not included in his statement of errors, nor raised during the trial, counsel for the husband now contends in his brief that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to entertain the proceeding because neither party was a resident of the District at the time of the trial, and that accordingly the case should have been dis *492 missed on the ground of forum non con-veniens. This court thoroughly discussed the application of the above doctrine in Clark v. Clark, D.C.Mun.App., 144 A.2d 919, and held that its application is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court and its ruling in that regard should not be disturbed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. We see no such abuse here. The other contentions require no comment.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge ROVER, who wrote the foregoing opinion, died before its publication.

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

ROVER, Chief Judge.

The appellee wife filed a complaint for maintenance for the four-year-old son of the parties. The complaint alleged that she was a resident of nearby Maryland and that the husband was a resident of the District of Columbia. The husband’s answer admitted these allegations of residence. After a hearing, at which both parties testified, the court awarded permanent custody of the child to the mother, subject to visitation rights by the husband, ordered maintenance of $150 per month for the child and allowed the wife’s attorney $300 counsel fee.

Although not included in his statement of errors, nor raised during the trial, counsel for the husband now contends in his brief that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to entertain the proceeding because neither party was a resident of the District at the time of the trial, and that accordingly the case should have been dis *492 missed on the ground of forum non con-veniens. This court thoroughly discussed the application of the above doctrine in Clark v. Clark, D.C.Mun.App., 144 A.2d 919, and held that its application is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court and its ruling in that regard should not be disturbed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. We see no such abuse here. The other contentions require no comment.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge ROVER, who wrote the foregoing opinion, died before its publication.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.2d 491, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmstone-v-harmstone-dc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack