Title: Curtis v. Curtis
Citation: 218 Kan. 130, 542 P.2d 330
Docket Number: 47,754
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 1975

218 Kan. 130 (1975)
542 P.2d 330
BILLIE J. CURTIS, Appellee,
v.
ERNEST L. CURTIS, Appellant.
No. 47,754

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 8, 1975.
Frederick K. Cross, Chartered, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Michael J. Peterson, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FROMME, J.:
Ernest L. Curtis appeals from an order of the district court denying a motion to modify or vacate alimony payments which had been agreed upon by him and his former wife, Billie J. Curtis, in a written property settlement agreement.
The agreement in part provided:
The decree of divorce in pertinent part provided:
The motion to modify the alimony payments was filed a year and six months after the agreement was approved and made a part of the decree by the divorce court. The basis for the motion to modify was increased personal living expenses arising when appellant took custody of his fourteen year old daughter. Child support payments had been terminated by the court.
This case is controlled by K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 60-1610 (d) which provides:
This court construed the foregoing provision in Drummond v. Drummond, 209 Kan. 86, 495 P.2d 994. We held that:
See also Dodd v. Dodd, 210 Kan. 50, 499 P.2d 518, and Cheek v. Kelley, 212 Kan. 820, 512 P.2d 355.
Drummond was followed in Wallace v. Wallace, 214 Kan. 344, 520 P.2d 1221, where we held:
Payment of alimony settled by mutual agreement of the parties, found by the trial court to be valid, just and equitable, and incorporated in the divorce decree, is not subject to subsequent modification by the court except as the agreement itself may prescribe or the parties may consent. (K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 60-1610 [d].)
The order of the district court is affirmed.
MILLER, J., not participating.