Charles Horton Devers - Page 12

                                       - 11 -                                         
          and, because petitioner did not appeal the award, the order was             
          enforceable in its own right.  “An order to pay attorney’s fees             
          is * * * more than a judgement for money; it is a personal order            
          to the spouse.”  Minor v. Minor, supra at 165-166.  Because the             
          order to pay Mr. Dubin was a personal order to petitioner, even             
          if Ms. Devers had predeceased payment, the order would still have           
          been valid, petitioner’s obligation to pay $5,000 would have                
          survived, and Mr. Dubin would have had his own cause of action to           
          collect directly from petitioner.  The fact that the case giving            
          rise to the PDL in discussion did not result in a final                     
          dissolution of the marriage is irrelevant for the inquiry at                
          hand.                                                                       
          3.  Conclusion                                                              
               Although the Supreme Court of Missouri has not addressed the           
          narrow legal issue presented in the instant case, the State’s               
          statutory scheme of the child support, maintenance, and attorney            
          fee provisions, as well as relevant caselaw, suggests that                  
          petitioner’s obligation to Mr. Dubin would not have terminated              
          had Ms. Devers died before satisfaction of the obligation whether           
          or not the PDL was ever followed by a Final Order and Decree of             
          Dissolution.  For that reason, and after considering all of the             
          facts and circumstances, we hold that petitioner’s deduction of             
          the $5,000 paid to Mr. Dubin was improper as it did not meet the            
          definition of “alimony” under section 71(b)(D).                             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011