From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wenzel v. Wenzel

Supreme Court of South Dakota
Dec 24, 1940
295 N.W. 493 (S.D. 1940)

Opinion

File No. 8389.

Opinion filed December 24, 1940.

1. Divorce.

Under statute empowering court to modify provisions of divorce decree for support of wife and maintenance of children, courts power to modify orders providing for support of wife extends to installments which have accrued and are past due. SDC 14.0726.

2. Divorce.

Under statute empowering court to modify its orders providing for an allowance for support of wife, court is justified in exercising its power when changed conditions are established.

3. Divorce.

Where former wife remarried, trial court properly amended final decree of divorce so as to relieve the former husband from all obligations for accrued past due and future permanent allowances for support of the former wife. SDC 14.0726.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; Hon. John T. Medin, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Mae Wenzel against Benjamin F. Wenzel. From an order amending a final decree so as to relieve defendant from all obligations for support of plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Louis H. Smith, of Sioux Falls, for Appellant.

E.E. Sullivan and Hugh S. Gamble, both of Sioux Falls, for Respondent.


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.

[1-3] 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.


Summaries of

Wenzel v. Wenzel

Supreme Court of South Dakota
Dec 24, 1940
295 N.W. 493 (S.D. 1940)
Case details for

Wenzel v. Wenzel

Case Details

Full title:WENZEL, Appellant, v. WENZEL, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of South Dakota

Date published: Dec 24, 1940

Citations

295 N.W. 493 (S.D. 1940)
295 N.W. 493

Citing Cases

Weygand v. Weygand

We do not look upon appellant's claim as a matter of property right or an award of money, as the order…

Lines v. Lines

This question was considered by this court in Vert v. Vert, 3 S.D. 619, 54 N.W. 655, and the rule then laid…