Beddoes v. Beddoes
| Decision Date | 08 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20496,20496 |
| Citation | 393 P.2d 1,155 Colo. 115 |
| Parties | Peggy N. BEDDOES, Plaintiff in Error, v. Donald E. BEDDOES, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
McLean & McLean, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Cristiano & Bugdanowitz, Denver, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the plaintiff in error as the wife or mother and to the defendant in error as the husband or father.
This writ of error is directed to the propriety of an order entered in the trial court modifying an original order for child support, and terminating entirely the order entered at the time of the divorce decree for the payment of $85.00 per month alimony for the wife. Child support payments were reduced from $100.00 a month for each of two children (a total of $200.00) to $42.50 a week for both children.
Ordinarily the decision of the trial court in proceedings of this type will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255, 353 P.2d 379. In this case, however, the reduction in child support shows a misconception of the applicable law. The change in circumstances was not such as to support an order reducing the father's obligation to support his children. The needs of the children had actually increased since the entry of the original order, and the father did not contend that they had decreased.
In his motion requesting the court to change its previous orders, he alleged that his income had been materially reduced; that he was 'financially unable to pay the amount ordered'; that his ability to pay had been 'substantially reduced' since the entry of the order. He also alleged that the income and property of the wife had 'materially increased' since the entry of the order.
The evidence does not support the husband's allegations with reference to his income or inability to pay. He had the same employer as at the time the original order was entered. His earnings fluctuated according to the hours worked, but there was a very negligible difference in his income compared to his earnings at the time the support payments were determined by the court. A change, if indeed any was shown, was not so substantial as to warrant a change in the order.
The only other evidence on the father's inability to pay was a substantial increase in his expenses. This, however, was brought about by reason of obligations incurred through entering into a new marriage. This type of change is not, by itself, a ground for modification. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 102 Colo. 94, 76 P.2d 1104; Smith v. Smith, 106 Colo. 205, 103 P.2d 11.
The court did not enter any findings of fact so we can only speculate that in view of the husband's income and the needs of the children the court must have been motivated by evidence showing that the wife's financial condition had improved in the years since the entry of the divorce decree. This element, though sometimes to be taken into consideration in determining child support payments, cannot under the facts in this case relieve the father of the duty of child support. In Garrow v. Garrow, Colo. 382 P.2d 809, wherein it was shown that the mother was the recipient of substantial funds from her family, it was said: 'Here the voluntary donations to Eileen * * * had nothing to do with William's duty of support, which must be based upon the needs of the children and his ability to pay, * * *.' (Emphasis supplied)
In 89 A.L.R.2d 7 (1963), is the following statement which is in line with the reasoning in the Garrow case:
'Thus, applications for a reduction in child support payments based on such a change in the mother's financial condition as her gainful employment, an increase in her earnings, her acquisition of property, or the like, have been denied in many cases, where no other circumstances warranted a reduction in the payments, on reasoning to the effect that a mother's employment or income does not relieve the father of the obligation to support his children under a support order, that the mother's employment or property does not inure to the father's benefit as a change of circumstances diminishing his obligation to support children, or that the mother's financial condition is not material insofar as the father's obligation to support his children is concerned.'
Because of what has been shown with reference to the husband's income, we conclude that the court's action in terminating the alimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christiansen v. Christiansen, 18132
...a ten year period. The trial court's increase in child support from $110 to $200 per month was sustained. See also Beddoes v. Beddoes, 155 Colo. 115, 393 P.2d 1 (1964) (improvement in mother's financial condition did not warrant decrease in child support); In re Winner, 58 Or.App. 597, 649 ......
-
Linden v. Linden
...from awarding alimony when it is part of a just and equitable property settlement. Id. at 200–01. The Colorado Supreme Court held in Beddoes v. Beddoes that alimony should not be eliminated when the father had ample opportunity to improve his financial situation but did not apply himself in......
-
Heyl v. Heyl
...1097, 43 A.L.R.2d 351; and it has been said that courts should proceed with caution in modifying any alimony decree, Beddoes v. Beddoes, 155 Colo. 115, 393 P.2d 1, 3. There is also another important circumstance, which is that the hearing for modification was had before the same trial judge......
-
Frazier v. Frazier
...It is not every change of circumstance that entitles a former husband to a reduction of his support payments. E.g., Beddoes v. Beddoes, 155 Colo. 115, 393 P.2d 1 (1964); Moses v. Moses, 155 Colo. 340, 394 P.2d 601 (1964); Harris v. Harris, 113 Colo. 41, 154 P.2d 617 (1944); Low v. Low, 79 C......
-
ARTICLE 10
...through entering into a new marriage, since this type of change was not, by itself, a ground for modification. Beddoes v. Beddoes, 155 Colo. 115, 393 P.2d 1 (1964). Improved ability to pay support insufficient for modification. Evidence of the father's ability to pay an increased amount of ......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...through entering into a new marriage, since this type of change was not, by itself, a ground for modification. Beddoes v. Beddoes, 155 Colo. 115, 393 P.2d 1 (1964). Improved ability to pay support insufficient for modification. Evidence of the father's ability to pay an increased amount of ......