TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Montalbo v. Montalbo

Kathryn MONTALBO v. Thomas MONTALBO

Montalbo v. Montalbo, 175 A.2d 786 (D.C. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1961
Docket
No. 2823
Judges
Hood, Municipal, Quinn, Smith
Citations
175 A.2d 7861961 D.C. App. LEXIS 293

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court awarding appellee an absolute divorce on the ground of five years’ voluntary separation without cohabitation. The sole question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to incorporate in the decree a provision for the maintenance and support of the wife.

The facts may be briefly stated. The parties were married in New York State in October 1946 and separated in June 1955, at which time they entered into a written agreement providing for the maintenance and support of the wife. In January 1959, by reason of his employment, ap-pellee moved to the District of Columbia where he brought this suit some eighteen months later. The wife, a resident of New York, did not appear at trial but was represented by counsel. At the hearing her counsel requested that the provision for her support spelled out in the separation agreement be incorporated in the divorce decree. Appellee’s counsel objected. The court held that the separation agreement was a binding contract but refused to incorporate the support provision in the judgment.

A careful examination of the record convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Alves v. Alves262 A.2d 111 (D.C. 1970)

Most recent

  1. Alves v. Alves262 A.2d 111 (D.C. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list