Court Opinion

ID: 9736296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:50:13.740925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.548336
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from the granting of summary judgment in an action filed in the Civil Division of the Municipal Court by appellee claiming support arrearages for herself and son under a written separation agreement. Although not raised by the parties, we regard the primary question as being whether the case was filed in the appropriate branch of the Municipal Court.
The Act of April 11, 1956,1 creating the Domestic Relations Branch of the Municipal Court, gave it “exclusive jurisdiction over all * * * civil actions to enforce support of minor children; civil actions to enforce support of wife; * * 2 Construing this language in Thomason v. Thomason, Judge Prettyman declared;
“The term 'civil actions’ includes all actions, both those formerly known as equitable actions and those known as legal actions; or, in other phraseology, both suits in equity and actions at law. * * * » 3
On the basis of this interpretation, we believe the Domestic Relations Branch was the appropriate forum for appellee’s .complaint. It is therefore necessary that we re*196mand the case to the trial court with directions (1) to set aside the order granting summary judgment, and (2) to transfer the case to the Domestic Relations Branch for a hearing on the motion.
It is so ordered.

. Code 1951, 11-758 et seq. (Supp. YIII).

. Code 1951, 11-762 (Supp. VIII).

. Thomason v. Thomason, 1959, 107 U.S. App.D.C. 27, 28-29, 274 F.2d 89, 90-91, reversing Hitchcock v. Thomason, D.C. Mun.App., 148 A.2d 458.