Baldwin v. Baldwin

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HUGHES
• Citation: Baldwin v. Baldwin, 253 Wis. 200, 33 N.W.2d 198 (Wis. 1948)
• Decision Date: 01 July 1948
• Parties: BALDWIN v. BALDWIN.

253 Wis. 200

33 N.W.2d 198

BALDWIN

v.BALDWIN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

July 1, 1948.

Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of Kenosha County; Edward J. Ruetz, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Janet E. Baldwin against Drew T. Baldwin, wherein the plaintiff was awarded a divorce and $75 a month for alimony and $30 a month for support of an infant child of the parties. From an order modifying the judgment in order to relieve defendant from payment of any further alimony and directing payment of $12 a week for support of the minor child of the parties, the plaintiff appeals.-[By Editorial Staff.]

Order reversed and cause remanded with directions to vacate order appealed from.The order of November 8, 1947, from which plaintiff appeals, modified a judgment of divorce in so far as it provided for support money and alimony.

Pursuant to stipulation the original judgment in 1936 provided for payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of the sum of $75 per month for alimony and $30 per month for support of the infant child of the parties.

On January 8, 1947 the defendant caused to be served upon the plaintiff an order to show cause why the judgment should not be amended to discontinue alimony payments. The affidavit supporting the order stated ‘that this defendant feels that he has fully discharged his obligations to the plaintiff by paying the alimony for a period of ten years and that there is no further necessity for paying such alimony.’

Upon the hearing in January the evidence disclosed that the plaintiff was employed and earned about $110 per month; that at the time the divorce was entered defendant had no estate, but was earning $200 per month; that in 1944 he had remarried, and that there are no children of the second marriage; that his present wife is employed teaching school; that defendant owns his home; and that he has acquired a 28 1/8 per cent interest in the Baldwin Coal Company, and in 1946 drew about $800 as a bonus.

The trial court thereupon entered a temporary order, effective to April 1, 1947, reducing alimony to $30 per month and increasing the support money payments to $60 per month.

At a hearing in May plaintiff testified that she had been ill and hospitalized in February and remained unable to work from February 15 to May 19. She expressed doubt as to the extent to which she would be able to work in the future. Decision was deferred pending filing of memoranda by counsel.

In June plaintiff instituted contempt proceedings against defendant for failure to pay alimony and support money, and called the court's attention to his failure to furnish a brief as required by the court in May. On August 12, 1947 the court rendered its decision:

‘It is the law that alimony is subject to such reduction or change as may later appear to be just in view of the changed circumstances if the parties.

‘There is in this case a change in the circumstances of the parties. The defendant's income has not increased in proportion to the cost of living, and the minor child of the parties is now old enough so she does not require the full time attention of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is, and has been for some time, employed. These facts, it seems to me, justify a termination of the alimony, but since the child has reached the age where the cost of supporting her has increased several-fold, it is the order of the court that the defendant pay the sum of $12.00 weekly for the support of said child.’

On November 8, 1947 the court entered an order which recited appearances; the fact that for some time plaintiff had been employed; that it appeared to the court that $12 per week is a reasonable sum for support of the minor child; and continued:

‘Now, Therefore, It Is Ordered, that the judgment heretofore entered in the above entitled action be, and is hereby modified so that commencing on the first day of September, 1947 the said defendant is relieved from the payment of any further alimony to the plaintiff.

‘It Is Further Ordered, that commencing on the first day of September, 1947 that the judgment heretofore entered be modified and amended so that when amended it shall require the defendant to pay to the clerk of the municipal court of Kenosha county, Wisconsin, the sum of twelve (12.00) dollars per week for the support of the minor child of the parties.’

From that order the plaintiff appeals.

George W. Taylor, of Kenosha (Matt Taylor, of Kenosha, of counsel), for appellant.

Vaudreuil & Vaudreuil, of Kenosha, for respondent.

HUGHES, Justice.

The principles of law upon this subject are thoroughly discussed in Littig v. Littig, 1938, 229 Wis. 430,...