(Download) "Julius A. Steffan v. Marie M. Steffan" by St. Louis District Missouri Court of Appeals ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: Julius A. Steffan v. Marie M. Steffan
Author : St. Louis District Missouri Court of Appeals
Release Date : January 20, 1965
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 59 KB

Description

This appeal arose out of an action for divorce. On March 12, 1964, Julius A. Steffan filed a petition in the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County wherein he prayed for a divorce from the defendant, Marie M. Steffan, and for custody of Bruce, the minor
child of the parties. On March 20, 1964, defendant filed her entry of appearance in which she acknowledged receipt of a copy
of plaintiff's petition, waived issuance and service of summons, entered her general appearance, and consented to the court
taking up and hearing the matter without any further notice to her. Defendant filed no answer or other responsive pleading
and did not appear in person or by counsel at the hearing of the cause on April 1, 1964. The court rendered a decree on that
date in which it found that plaintiff was the innocent and injured party, granted him a divorce, awarded him custody of the
minor child Bruce, and approved and incorporated in the decree a stipulation for a property settlement which plaintiff and
defendant had executed on March 28, 1964. Plaintiff was killed in an accident on April 4, 1964. On April 9, 1964, eight days after the decree had been granted and
five days after plaintiff's death, defendant filed what was titled "Motion to Set Aside Divorce Decree, Or In the Alternative,
Motion for a New Trial." In her motion defendant alleged, among other grounds, that the decree was obtained by fraud practiced
before the court by the plaintiff in that the plaintiff and defendant had co-habited together as man and wife on March 29,
30 and 31, 1964, that they had been voluntarily reconciled, that the plaintiff had condoned any alleged acts the defendant
might have committed, that plaintiff secretly and without knowledge obtained the decree, that she was unaware of the decree
until after plaintiff's death, and that had she known that plaintiff was going to attempt to get a divorce after they had
lived together she would have appeared in opposition and have presented what she stated was a meritorious defense. The record
indicates that notice of defendant's motion was served on Mr. Joseph Furtaw, the attorney who had represented the plaintiff
in the proceedings prior to plaintiff's death, and that Mr. Furtaw advised counsel for defendant either that he was not in
the case anymore or that he had not been retained by anyone at that time.