Uno Helgesson v. Jeanne Helgesson

First Circuit

Uno Helgesson v. Jeanne Helgesson

295 F.2d 37

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1961

Docket5861_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 295 F.2d 37 (Uno Helgesson v. Jeanne Helgesson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Uno Helgesson v. Jeanne Helgesson, 295 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action on a foreign judgment for alimony the opinion of the district court, 1961, 196 F.Supp. 42, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment adequately disposed of the defenses advanced before that court. An additional defense is sought to be asserted here. The record shows that the defendant was aware of the existence of this defense, if in fact it is one, prior to the hearing on the motion. It is too late now, both because it is an affirmative defense and was not pleaded, and because it was not raised at the hearing by affidavit. The purpose of summary judgment procedure is prompt disposition, not second guessing on appeal.

Defendant also questions here the existence of the jurisdictional amount. It is, of course, never too late to do this. However, defendant fails to distinguish between alimony and support of minor children. These are two different matters. Cf. Commissioner v. Lester, 1961, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L.Ed. 2d 306. Current payments as to one cannot be used to discharge or offset the other. Under the terms of the judgment more than $10,000 in alimony was due and unpaid.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action on a foreign judgment for alimony the opinion of the district court, 1961, 196 F.Supp. 42, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment adequately disposed of the defenses advanced before that court. An additional defense is sought to be asserted here. The record shows that the defendant was aware of the existence of this defense, if in fact it is one, prior to the hearing on the motion. It is too late now, both because it is an affirmative defense and was not pleaded, and because it was not raised at the hearing by affidavit. The purpose of summary judgment procedure is prompt disposition, not second guessing on appeal.

Defendant also questions here the existence of the jurisdictional amount. It is, of course, never too late to do this. However, defendant fails to distinguish between alimony and support of minor children. These are two different matters. Cf. Commissioner v. Lester, 1961, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L.Ed. 2d 306. Current payments as to one cannot be used to discharge or offset the other. Under the terms of the judgment more than $10,000 in alimony was due and unpaid.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 F.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uno-helgesson-v-jeanne-helgesson-ca1-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack