Wenzel v. Wenzel

295 N.W. 493, 67 S.D. 537, 1940 S.D. LEXIS 83
South Dakota Supreme Court·Decided December 24, 1940·No. File No. 8389.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order amending a final decree in a divorce proceeding so as to relieve the former husband from all obligation with reference to accrued past due and future permanent allowances for the support of the former wife.

That the power of the court to modify its orders providing for an allowance for the support of the wife made under SDC 14.0726 extends to installments which have accrued and are past due, is settled by Edith Rudd v. Frank Gerken, 67 S. D. 534, 295 N. W. 491. A court is justified in exercising its power to so modify its orders when changed conditions are established. Shoop v. Shoop, 58 S. D. 593, 237 N. W. 904; Vert v. Vert, 3 S. D. 619, 54 N. W. 655. In view of the remarriage of the former wife, and all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record in this case, we are unable 'to say that the learned trial court failed to exercise a sound judicial discretion in modifying its amended decree.

The order of the learned trial court is affirmed.

SMITH, P.J., and POLLEY, ROBERTS, and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur. WARREN, J., concurs in result.

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

Wenzel v. Wenzel, 295 N.W. 493, 67 S.D. 537, 1940 S.D. LEXIS 83 (S.D. 1940).

295 N.W. 493 (Wenzel v. Wenzel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eggers v. Eggers
153 N.W.2d 187 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1967)
Austad v. Austad
269 P.2d 284 (Utah Supreme Court, 1954)
State Ex Rel. Fitch v. Powers
62 N.W.2d 764 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1954)
Lines v. Lines
9 N.W.2d 705 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1943)
Jennings v. Jennings
11 Conn. Super. Ct. 391 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1942)
Weygand v. Weygand
297 N.W. 689 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1941)