Reed v. Reed

Murphy, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court. By decree dated November 7, 1955, appellee Frances Reed was divorced a vinculo matrimonii from the appellant Roderick Reed, the decree providing, inter alia, that the “defendant shall be responsible for [the] support” of the minor children of the parties. The decree also provided in the interlineated personal handwriting of the Chancellor, the Honorable D. K. McLaughlin, that “this court shall have continuing jurisdiction in these proceedings.” On February 3, 1970, approximately fifteen years after the original decree was enrolled, appellee petitioned for modification of the decree to require appellant to pay her “an amount of money each month for her support.” Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the decree of November 5, 1955, dissolving the marriage awarded no alimony to appellee, and did not reserve jurisdiction to consider and pass upon alimony in the future. By opinion dated April 22, 1970, Judge McLaughlin, interpreting his ³⁹⁸ own decree, concluded that the court had retained jurisdiction to award alimony or support money to the appellee.

Judge McLaughlin held that his purpose in inserting the provision in the decree that “this court shall have continuing jurisdiction in these proceedings” was to preserve jurisdiction for future alimony award. He stated in his opinion: “Knowing throughout the years that lawyers inadvertently do not protect their clients as to alimony and support in Decrees, I have continuously made additions to Decrees throughout the past fifteen years.” Subsequently, a hearing was held on the merits of appellee’s petition for modification before Judge Irvine Rutledge, at the conclusion of which alimony in the amount of $130.00 monthly was awarded appellee. From this order, the instant appeal was filed, raising as the primary question: “Whether the statement that ‘this Court shall have continuing jurisdiction in these proceedings’ is sufficient to reserve jurisdiction over the subject matter as to questions of alimony in a case in which no alimony was prayed for and the decree dissolving the marriage awarded no alimony.”