Andrews v. Andrews, 21369
| Decision Date | 06 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21369,21369 |
| Parties | Elroy William ANDREWS, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary Leslie ANDREWS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Gorsuch, kirgis, Campbell, Walker & Grover, Charles E. Rhyne, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Williams & Zook, Roger E. Stevens, Edgar R. Locke, Jr., Boulder, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, who will hereinafter be referred to as the father, challenges the correctness of the order of the trial court which modified the provisions of a divorce decree as it related to child support.
The sole question for our determination on this writ of error is: Was there such a change in circumstances--as shown by the particular facts in this case--as to support the court's action?
When the parties were divorced, they entered into an agreement concerning child support as of the time of the entry of the decree and also for the future. This agreement was adopted by the court and made a part of the decree of divorce, wherein was used the identical language contained in the contract between the parties. Pertinent to the question presented by this writ of error is a paragraph in the agreement and in the decree which provided a formula for arriving at the support payments to be made by the father based upon a percentage of his annual gross taxable income as shown by his yearly tax return.
The formula was operative for more than ten years. During this period of time the father's income increased, and, in turn, his annual support payments were also increased commensurately, by virtue of the percentage ratio as provided in the formula.
In 1963, the mother filed a petition to modify the decree, in which she alleged a change of circumstances. The court, after hearing, found that the father's income had increased--and this is not disputed--made a further finding that the support payments as provided in the decree were 'inequitable,' that the children had grown in age--also a fact not disputed--and that, therefore, their needs had increased proportionately. It ordered the father to pay $195 per month for child support for three children until further order of the court.
The defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as the mother, has filed cross-error. She now claims that the court order for child support is insufficient and alleges that the father should be made to pay at least $350 per month.
The evidence at the hearing revealed that the children were being cared for by an independently wealthy mother. They were attending expensive private schools, both at home and abroad, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Udis, In re, 87SC409
...the $500 monthly "alimony" payment, it was anticipated that the [wife] would be earning income in the future. Andrews, Jr. v. Andrews, 161 Colo. [529, 423 P.2d 573 (1967) ]. The Court of Appeals construed this language to indicate a conclusion by the trial court that the separation agreemen......
-
Marriage of Channell, In re
...contingency, therefore, could not, in itself, be a changed circumstance that was not contemplated by the decree. See Andrews v. Andrews, 161 Colo. 529, 423 P.2d 573 (1967). Hence, we conclude that insofar as the court's order modifying support was based upon its conclusion that the original......