22 N.W.2d 212 | Minn. | 1946
On September 25, 1937, Olive M. Williams (now Olive M. Gooding) began an action for divorce on the grounds of desertion. Defendant, Arthur Frederick Williams, was personally served. The case was tried as a default divorce, and a decree of divorce was entered on the same day.
The decree required defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of five dollars per week for the support of the minor child of the parties. *442 Notice of entry of the decree of divorce was never served on defendant. Until March 21, 1945, defendant failed to pay any installments.
On that date, plaintiff brought a separate action against defendant to collect the unpaid installments amounting to $1,800 plus interest. That action is still pending.
In April 1945, defendant served a notice of motion asking for an order modifying the divorce decree and setting aside the unpaid installments. The court ordered the back payments set aside and changed the support money payment from five dollars a week to $20 a month for the future.
Plaintiff appeals from the order granting the above relief. The issues here are whether defendant had to be served with notice of the decree and, if not, whether the court had the power to set aside accrued payments and decrease the periodic support payments for the future.
1. A judgment is notice to the parties from the time of its entry. Holmes v. Campbell,
2. Since action of the lower court cannot be sustained on the theory of lack of notice, the issue is whether its action constituted an abuse of discretion in cancelling arrearages and lowering periodic payments of support money for the minor child. That precise issue was dealt with by this court in Quist v. Quist,
Order reversed.
MR. JUSTICE CHRISTIANSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.