295 F.2d 37 - Helgesson v. Helgesson — 295 F.2d 37

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1992

5 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Edward E. Cohen, Boston, Mass., for appellant.

¶2James G. Walsh, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom Sydney Berkman and Widett & Kruger, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.

¶3Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5In this diversity action on a foreign judgment for alimony the opinion of the district court, 1961, 196 F.Supp. 42, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment adequately disposed of the defenses advanced before that court. An additional defense is sought to be asserted here. The record shows that the defendant was aware of the existence of this defense, if in fact it is one, prior to the hearing on the motion. It is too late now, both because it is an affirmative defense and was not pleaded, and because it was not raised at the hearing by affidavit. The purpose of summary judgment procedure is prompt disposition, not second guessing on appeal.

¶6 Defendant also questions here the existence of the jurisdictional amount. It is, of course, never too late to do this. However, defendant fails to distinguish between alimony and support of minor children. These are two different matters. Cf. Commissioner v. Lester, 1961, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L.Ed. 2d 306. Current payments as to one cannot be used to discharge or offset the other. Under the terms of the judgment more than $10,000 in alimony was due and unpaid.

¶7Affirmed.