Rucker v. Rucker

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Rucker v. Rucker

2 D.C. 42

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1935

DocketEquity No. 55961

StatusPublished

This text of 2 D.C. 42 (Rucker v. Rucker) 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

Rucker v. Rucker, 2 D.C. 42 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMO. OPINION

PROCTOR, J.

In my opinion, after dismissal of the suit, the Court is now without jurisdiction to adjudicate and establish of record the claim for unpaid alimony under the pendente lite order.

It would also seem that plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the case, with accrued alimony unpaid, operated as a waiver. A great many cases for divorce or maintenance, with pendente orders for support, etc., are dismissed by wives, prompted by reconciliation or other consideration. Is it in the public interest, or conducive to the orderly course of justice, that claims based upon pendente orders, left unadjudicated, should be allowed to hang over indefinitely for further proceedings at the whim of the wife? I think not. Her rights in such regard ought to fall with her act dismissing the suit.

Therefore, in the absence of a statute or controlling decision clearly supporting plaintiff’s petition, I feel constrained to sustain the motion to dismiss. Present order.

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

MEMO. OPINION

PROCTOR, J.

In my opinion, after dismissal of the suit, the Court is now without jurisdiction to adjudicate and establish of record the claim for unpaid alimony under the pendente lite order.

It would also seem that plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the case, with accrued alimony unpaid, operated as a waiver. A great many cases for divorce or maintenance, with pendente orders for support, etc., are dismissed by wives, prompted by reconciliation or other consideration. Is it in the public interest, or conducive to the orderly course of justice, that claims based upon pendente orders, left unadjudicated, should be allowed to hang over indefinitely for further proceedings at the whim of the wife? I think not. Her rights in such regard ought to fall with her act dismissing the suit.

Therefore, in the absence of a statute or controlling decision clearly supporting plaintiff’s petition, I feel constrained to sustain the motion to dismiss. Present order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 D.C. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-rucker-dc-1935.