GILL
v.
GILL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the wife's maintenance suit based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
A wife sued her husband for maintenance in the District Court, though neither party was domiciled there and they resided together in Virginia. The hus…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, wife of appellee, sued for maintenance in the District Court. The parties were married in France, November 22, 1948. Since December 8, 1948, they have resided together at their home in Arlington County, Virginia, and were so doing when this suit was filed. Neither claims residence or domicile in the District of Columbia. There are no children. The wife is employed and receives a regular income of $237.60 per month. The husband is an Army Colonel assigned for a short period of duty at Fort McNair in the District of Columbia, to which he goes each day from their home in Virginia.
Upon appellee’s motion, the court applied the doctrine forum non conveniens and dismissed the suit. This appeal follows.
We think the court acted well within its discretion. See Curley v. Curley, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 163, 120 F. 2d 730, certiorari denied, 1941, 314 U.S. 614, 62 S.Ct. 114, 86 L.Ed. 494; Simons v. Simons, 1951, 88 U.S. App.D.C. 180, 187 F. 2d 364, certiorari denied, 1951, 341 U.S. 951, 71 S.Ct. 1019, 95 L.Ed. 1374. If Mrs. Gill has just grounds for a maintenance award the law of Virginia is adequate. Code of Virginia (1950) § 20-88.1; Heflin v. Heflin, 1941, 177 Va. 385, 14 S.E. 2d 317, 141 A.L.R. 391; White v. White, 1943, 181 Va. 162, 24 S.E. 2d 448; Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1944, 183 Va. 96, 31 S.E. 2d 284; Williams v. Williams, 1948, 188 Va. 543, 50 S.E. 2d 277. Even should we assume upon the undisputed facts that appellant could gain an award here, still, as the welfare of children, rights of property, or other public interests in the District of Columbia are in nowise affected, we see no reason for interfering with the trial court’s discretionary action, especially so in view of its crowded calendars.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elec. Equip. Co. v. Sec. Nat'l Bank, 606 F.2d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
Authorities Cited
- E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 341 U.S. 951 (U.S. 1951)
- Curley v. Curley, 120 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
- Farren v. Mahoney, 314 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1941)
- Bd. of Comm'rs of San Juan v. De Castro, 314 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1941)
- Simons v. Simons, 187 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1951)