Menetrez v. Menetrez

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Menetrez v. Menetrez

147 A.2d 772, 1959 D.C. App. LEXIS 221

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 1959

Docket2259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 A.2d 772 (Menetrez v. Menetrez) 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

Menetrez v. Menetrez, 147 A.2d 772, 1959 D.C. App. LEXIS 221 (D.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an award entered by the trial court under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, as adopted in the District of Columbia July 10, 1957. 1 His principal contention is that the court abused its discretion in awarding a sum for the support of his minor child in excess of the amount requested by his former wife and recommended by the forwarding state. We have examined the record and find sufficient evidence to uphold the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. Therefore the contention is without merit and need not be discussed at length.

The remaining assignment of error is that the trial court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 11 of the Domestic Relations Branch. On the basis of the record before us, we hold that there was substantial compliance with the rule.

Affirmed.

1

. Code 1951, § 11-601 et seq. (Supp. VI).

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an award entered by the trial court under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, as adopted in the District of Columbia July 10, 1957. 1 His principal contention is that the court abused its discretion in awarding a sum for the support of his minor child in excess of the amount requested by his former wife and recommended by the forwarding state. We have examined the record and find sufficient evidence to uphold the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. Therefore the contention is without merit and need not be discussed at length.

The remaining assignment of error is that the trial court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 11 of the Domestic Relations Branch. On the basis of the record before us, we hold that there was substantial compliance with the rule.

Affirmed.

1

. Code 1951, § 11-601 et seq. (Supp. VI).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.2d 772, 1959 D.C. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menetrez-v-menetrez-dc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack