Barbaras v. Barbaras
| Decision Date | 19 December 1902 |
| Docket Number | 13,124 - (114) |
| Citation | 92 N.W. 522,88 Minn. 105 |
| Parties | GEORGE BARBARAS v. HARRIET BARBARAS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the application and affidavit of plaintiff an order was issued from the district court for Dakota county requiring defendant to show cause why the judgment and decree of divorce entered in the action on February 6, 1892, should not be modified in respect to the amount of alimony and allowances required to be paid to defendant. The matter was heard before Crosby, J., who made an order, in the form of a judgment, modifying the original judgment by substituting in lieu of the annuity therein provided three annual payments of $250 each. Defendant appealed from this judgment. Affirmed.
Alimony -- Modification of Order.
The district courts of this state have jurisdiction to modify and change orders and judgments for alimony in divorce proceedings, under G.S. 1894, § 4809.
Depreciation in Husband's Income.
Petition for a modification of an annual allowance as alimony provided for in a judgment considered, and held that the fact that the property and income of the husband had materially depreciated in value since the divorce might furnish reasons for the reduction of an annual allowance to the divorced wife.
Findings of Fact.
Upon a motion to modify a judgment of divorce so far as it affects future allowances for alimony, the court is not required to make specific findings of fact, and its failure to do so is not reversible error.
W. H Gillitt and Albert Schaller, for appellant.
Hodgson & Lowell, for respondent.
In February, 1856, plaintiff and defendant were married, and lived together until December 28, 1891, when plaintiff commenced suit against defendant for divorce upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. On February 6, 1892, the court granted a divorce, and assigned to defendant, as her permanent alimony, a dwelling house in the city of Hastings with the furniture therein, also a life insurance policy previously procured for her benefit upon plaintiff's life, and further adjudged that defendant be paid out of the plaintiff's estate the sum of $250 per annum, commencing January 1, 1892, to continue during her lifetime. Ten of these payments had been made, when plaintiff sought to have the order for payments modified in respect to such stipendiary allowance, and petitioned the court for such relief; setting forth that his property and income had materially depreciated since the decree for divorce.
It was thereafter ordered that the defendant show cause before the district court why the previous decree should not be modified in the respects prayed for. To this defendant objected, and protested that the proceedings were conducted upon affidavits, as well as other grounds. She also answered the petition, denying the depreciation of plaintiff's property, and alleged that she had been the owner of property which defendant had used during their previous marriage relations. Thereafter, and within a reasonable period, there was a hearing upon the application to modify the decree, in the course of which witnesses were sworn and testified on both sides; and, upon the consideration of the matters presented by the petition and answer, the court entered judgment relieving the plaintiff from the payment of the sum of $250 per annum during the life of plaintiff, and in lieu thereof provided for three annual...
To continue reading
Request your trial