Sellman v. Sellman

Per Curiam. In this appeal a husband challenges an award of alimony pendente lite to his wife made by an order passed more than six months after a decree granting the wife a limited divorce and requiring the husband to pay permanent alimony. After the wife had sued for a divorce a mensa, an order was signed requiring the husband to pay alimony pendente lite of ⁶¹⁷ $40.00 per week “for 24 weeks, or until trial of the case if trial shall occur during such period, subject to further Order of the Court.” At the trial 19 weeks later (the husband in the meantime having made the required payments), the wife’s counsel asked the Chancellor whether alimony pendente lite would continue until his decision in the case, to which the Chancellor replied, “Continue as it is until such time as—.” After “breaking off” the statement, the Chancellor made a reference to the custody of a child of the parties, not germane here. lie did not elaborate his statement concerning alimony pendente lite, and no written order extending it was signed, and no docket entry made. The husband made five more payments (thus having made a total of 24 weekly payments of $40.00 each) and then stopped.

Seven months after the trial, the Chancellor filed a decree granting the wife a limited divorce and, among other things, requiring the husband to pay permanent alimony and “all arrearages in alimony pendente lite.” The husband has been making the payments of permanent alimony. During the seven months prior to the decree the wife took no action to enforce alimony pendente lite payments. Six weeks after the decree she filed a petition to have the husband held in contempt for not having made payments between the trial and the decree, but the Chancellor dismissed the petition because no transcript of what he had said at the trial was produced.