Court Opinion

ID: 9852334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:28:43.208153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:25.977326
License: Public Domain

Yetka, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I dissent from that portion of the opinion which re-affirms the holding of the majority in Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 229 N. W. 2d 131 (1975), filed herewith, to the effect that L. 1973, c. 725, § 74, lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18 did not apply to terminate child support provisions contained in divorce decrees entered prior to the effective date of the statute. I would hold that the statute was not intended to set up two separate classes of citizens between ages 18 and 21, and was in*508tended to cancel all obligations of support, whether contained in decrees entered prior to, or subsequent to, the effective date of the act, and refer to my separate dissent in Brugger.
I concur with the decision of the majority in this opinion that after children have reached the age of 18, contempt is not available to the trial court as a means of enforcement of a decree for child support entered prior to the effective date of L. 1973, c. 725.