FANNIE SEIDENBERG ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTHA E. SEIDENBERG, APPELLEE
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 prior rulings in the same litigation are controlling and that the District Court acted properly regarding support decrees and garnishment of trust funds.
This is the third appeal in ongoing litigation between the parties concerning a support decree and the garnishment of trust funds. Appellants sought t…
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 In Personam Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the third occasion on which this litigation between these parties has been before this court.1 Appellants here ask us to reverse our rulings in the two previous cases. We adhere to those rulings.
Appellants also ask us to determine whether the invasion of the bequest is contingent upon a showing that the beneficiary has refused to support his children and a showing that the funds so sought would be for the support of the children. We think these facts sufficiently appear in the record.
Appellants question whether the District Court could enter a judgment on an in personam claim in a support decree under the circumstances disclosed by the record in this case. Appellants’ question is answered by the eases of Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 193 F. 2d 677, and Brown v. Brown, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 205 F. 2d 720.
Finally, appellants object to that part of the decree subjecting to execution under garnishment proceedings the portion of the trust fund not immediately due. This is answered by § 15-312, D.C. Code 1951, providing that if credits attached shall not be immediately due and payable, execution shall be stayed until the same become due. This is what the District Court ordered.
As we find no error, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. Seidenberg v. Seidenberg, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 87, 219 F. 2d 769; Seidenberg v. Seidenberg, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 245, 225 F. 2d 545. The facts regarding this unfortunate litigation sufficiently appear in the decisions of these two cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kephart v. Kephart, 193 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
- Brown v. Brown, 205 F.2d 720 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
- Seidenberg v. Seidenberg, 225 F.2d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- Ford v. Dist. OF Columbia, 219 F.2d 769 (D.C. Cir. 1955)