Klumb v. Klumb

190 So. 2d 454, 1966 Miss. LEXIS 1393
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 27, 1966
DocketNo. 44218
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 So. 2d 454 (Klumb v. Klumb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Klumb v. Klumb, 190 So. 2d 454, 1966 Miss. LEXIS 1393 (Mich. 1966).

Opinion

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

The chancery court entered a decree granting Mrs. Klumb a divorce from Mr. Klumb, providing for $300 per month alimony, requiring Mr. Klumb to execute a $25,000 bond for the payment of the sum so allowed, requiring Mr. Klumb to insure his life for $25,000 with Mrs. Klumb as beneficiary, and ordering Mr. Klumb to pay Mrs. Klumb’s attorney. Mr. Klumb appealed, and has since remarried. Mrs. Klumb filed this motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that by remarrying Mr. Klumb accepted the benefits of the decree and is estopped from prosecuting his appeal.

As to the decree in this case, that part granting the divorce is severable from other parts of the decree involving alimony, attorney’s fees and insurance protection. Appellant is not appealing from that part of the decree granting Mrs. Klumb a divorce. He is aggrieved at the other parts of the decree. We hold Mr. Klumb is not estopped from appealing from those parts of the decree involving financial matters. Weatherford v. Weatherford, 91 So.2d 179 (Fla.1956). It is conceded that Mr. Klumb’s remarriage estops him from appealing from that part of the decree granting the divorce. Our statute provides that matters touching alimony and sureties for the payment of alimony may be changed from time to time as circumstances may require. The divorce is final. Miss. Code Ann. § 2743 (1956). [455]*455Thus the statute recognizes that the divorce is severable from other parts of the decree.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.

RODGERS, BRADY, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tompkins v. Tompkins
843 So. 2d 759 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2002)
Neal v. Neal
524 S.W.2d 460 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 So. 2d 454, 1966 Miss. LEXIS 1393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klumb-v-klumb-miss-1966.