Anderson v. Anderson, 9396
| Decision Date | 18 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 9396,9396 |
| Citation | 13 Utah 2d 36,368 P.2d 264 |
| Parties | d 36 Eugene A. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kathleen D. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Mary Condas Lehmer, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Clark & Clark, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment resulting from a trial where the plaintiff husband had petitioned for and obtained an order to show cause why the award of custody of two children to the defendant wife should not be vacated and why support money should not be terminated. The cause is remanded with instructions to proceed in accordance with the observations and conclusions following.
In March, 1959, plaintiff was awarded a divorce and defendant was awarded custody of two children and $120 per month for their support. At that time plaintiff was earning $260 per month at a Veterans Hospital, and was receiving $60 military reserve pay. The equity in the parties' home was awarded to defendant, and it was ordered that should she leave the premises, the support was to be increased to $180. She vacated the home and plaintiff commenced paying the increased amount, but as time went on payments were sporadic and delinquent on a number of occasions. Defendant took her children to Nevada, where she had a job, and where she left the children with foster parents for a monthly consideration.
About nine months after the divorce, plaintiff himself signed and filed a petition with the court for an award of custody of the children to him, and to terminate the support money. It appears that before the date set for hearing, plaintiff was represented by a firm of attorneys, but that fact did not appear as a matter of record. Defendant's counsel petitioned for a continuance for several reasons, which seem to have been legitimate, and the court entered an order continuing the matter for two weeks. However, on the original setting date, plaintiff's counsel appeared at the appointed hour with an out of state witness. The court contacted defendant's counsel and advised that on his own motion he was vacating the order of continuance, because plaintiff had not been notified of the continuance. Defendant was given an hour and a half to appear and contest the order to show cause. However, it developed that the court agreed to a further continuance if defendant would pay all of the costs incident to the hearing, otherwise the taking of testimony would proceed. Defendant's counsel, rather than agreeing to such terms, permitted the taking of testimony to continue. The matter was set for hearing on the merits early in February, 1960, about a month and a half after the perpetuation of the out of state witness' testimony and some testimony of the plaintiff, which latter testimony, although seemingly abortive in the previous hearing, was not objected to.
Prior to the continued hearing date, counsel for defendant filed an affidavit of bias and prejudice against the trial judge who was to sit and who did sit on the case. At the beginning of the trial, the judge, on his own motion, denied a removal of the cause to another judge, as it contemplated under rule 63(b), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 There may be merit in an argument that such refusal to comply with the rule might be indicative of the asserted prejudice; and somewhat demonstrates the wisdom of the rule itself.
If the rule means anything at all, it means what is plainly stated to the effect that the judge against whom the affidavit of bias and prejudice thereafter cannot proceed to hear the issue himself. Our only conclusion is that any order of judgment based on evidence thereafter taken by him would be ineffective against the affiant. It follows that this case must be remanded for another trial of the issues. As to costs and attorney's fees, it is ordered that consideration be given to the costs incurred since defendant's petition was filed, and in any proceedings subsequent to this decision, and to a reasonable attorney's fee during the same period.
Defendant's counsel raised four other points on appeal, which, so far as this case is concerned, are not necessary to determine, in view of what we have concluded. However, we deign to canvass them in the interest of being helpful in any future litigation between the parties.
Defendant says that the court erred in reducing the amount of support money since there was no evidence of change in circumstances. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogge v. Hogge
...be modified unless changed circumstances are demonstrated. Nielsen v. Nielsen, Utah, 620 P.2d 511, 512 (1980); Anderson v. Anderson, 13 Utah 2d 36, 39, 368 P.2d 264, 265-66 (1962). From these authorities, it appears that the trial court's decision whether to modify the provisions of a custo......
-
Kallas v. Kallas
...the adverse party and the children, and to enable such party to prosecute or defend the action. This Court stated in Anderson v. Anderson, 13 Utah 2d 36, 368 P.2d 264 (1962), that in order to provide sufficient protection for the interests of the children involved, attorney's fees may be aw......
-
Hardy v. Hardy
...a party to pay costs in defending the matter is a factual matter which lies in the discretion of the trial court. Anderson v. Anderson, 13 Utah 2d 36, 368 P.2d 264, 266 (1962). There was substantial evidence set forth in the record as to appellant's precarious financial circumstances as com......
-
Smith v. Smith
...custody should be reversed. WILKINS, J., concurs in result of Justice HALL's dissent. 1 Sec. 30--3--5, U.C.A. 1953.2 Anderson v. Anderson, 13 Utah 2d 36, 368 P.2d 264; Perkins v. Perkins, 522 P.2d 708 (Utah).3 So stated for this court through Justice Ellett in Hyde v. Hyde, 22 Utah 2d 429, ......
-
The Elusive Goal of Impartiality
...W.D. Tex. 1990). 162. See, e.g ., TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.059 (West 2005); UTAH R. CIV. P. 63(b), construed in Anderson v. Anderson, 368 P.2d 264, 265 (Utah 1962); People v. Mercado, 614 N.E.2d 284, 287–89 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993); State v. Thompson, 544 So. 2d 421, 428 (La. Ct. App. 1989); C......