Court Opinion

ID: 9563861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:48:28.631899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:05.986021
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
TAYLOR, Justice.
. In their petition for rehearing and supporting brief, defendants again urge that the terms of the Jones divorce decree were insufficient to create a valid trust; that the language of the decree was too uncertain and indefinite to create an “active” trust; and that “the terms, subject, persons and objects of the trust” not being set out, no trust was created. The court’s attention is again called to decisions in California, Kansas, Oklahoma and elsewhere, holding words equivalent to those employed in the Jones divorce decree, namely, “to be held in trust for the benefit of the three minor children of said marriage, [naming them]” insufficient to create a trust.
It is unnecessary to review the decisions cited. The decrees involved in those cases apparently did not subject the trustee to the continuing supervision of the divorce court. In the Jones case the court specifically provided that any disposition of the subject of the trust or the proceeds thereof, was to be done pursuant to future orders of the court; the trustees’ actions were to be directed and approved by the court. There was no occasion to spell out the terms, conditions and objects of the trust in the decree. These were to be supplied by orders made subsequent to the decree as the need arose.
“Decrees and orders affecting the custody and support of children are subject to the continuing control of the court and do not become final. Sauvageau v. Sauvageau, 59 Idaho 190, 81 *149P.2d 731; Arkoosh v. Arkoosh, 66 Idaho 607, 164 P.2d 590; Smith v. Smith, 67 Idaho 349, 180 P.2d 853; Rosgen v. Rosgen, 68 Idaho 521, 200 P.2d 1005; Hendricks v. Hendricks, 69 Idaho 341, 206 P.2d 523, 9 A.L.R.2d 617.” Application of Martin, 76 Idaho 179, at 183, 279 P.2d 873, at 875, 53 A.L.R.2d 582. I.C. § 32-705.
Defendants also object to reference in the opinion to the Gregory tract as community property, calling attention to an assignment of the contract, under which the Jones were purchasing that property, by Jack Jones to his wife, Veneta Jones. Assuming that the vendee’s interest in the Gregory tract was the separate property of Veneta Jones, the result is the same. The two parcels of property mentioned comprised all of the property owned by the Jones. There was no other property to which the court could resort to provide support and education for the children. Where necessary to that purpose the court may resort to the separate property of the husband, I.C. § 32-708, and of the wife, I.C. §§ 32-710, 32-1002, 32-1003; State v. Beslin, 19 Idaho 185, 112 P. 1053; Larson v. Independent School District, 53 Idaho 49, at 61, 22 P.2d 299.
Defendants also object to what they regard as a transfer or application of the power given to the divorce court by one section of the statute, to a power or purpose set out in another section. They contend that the power granted by each section is limited to cases in which the particular section is applicable and cannot be applied in any other case. (The sections referred to are quoted in the foregoing opinion). We think these sections are to be construed as in pari materia, and that the statutory, and indeed, the inherent, power of the courts as expressed in I.C. § 1-1622 (cited and relied upon by defendants in another connection) is applicable here, to wit:
“When jurisdiction is, by this code, or by any other statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction if the course of proceedings be not specially pointed out by this code, or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.” I.C. § 1-1622.
Defendants also complain of this court’s failure to note and give effect to other documents appearing in the record. We have purposely avoided determining the legal effect of some of the documents and proceedings leading up to this action for the reason that this case is before us on an appeal from a summary judgment. The validity and legal effect of all documents *150and proceedings not necessarily involved in this decision on appeal are left for the determination of the trial court.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
SMITH, C. J., and KNUDSON, Mc-QUADE and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.