Berge v. Berge
| Decision Date | 19 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--185,73--185 |
| Citation | 522 P.2d 752,33 Colo.App. 376 |
| Parties | Marilynn Louisa BERGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trygve BERGE, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Morrato, Gueck & Colantuno, P.C., I. Thomas Bieging, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Dickerson & Levine, Jack Levine, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the trial court in this divorce action ordering him to pay child support and, in order to secure the payment of such support, issuing a charging order against defendant's joint venture interest in certain real estate.
He contends that he had no current income, that the wife was awarded all liquid assets of the parties in the property settlement, and that he should not be required to pay child support for his three children of $150 per month per child as ordered by the court.
Defendant was awarded substantial property in the property settlement and has a demonstrated earning ability. Merely because he desires to work in the development of a ski area in Norway on a long-range investment does not relieve him of his obligation to support his children, and 'the fact that a person is without funds and without profitable employment has been held not to preclude the allowance of reasonable alimony and support where nothing but a disinclination to work, regardless of the motive therefor, interferes with his ability to earn a reasonable living.' Rapson v. Rapson, 165 Colo. 188, 437 P.2d 780, Karkanen v. Valdesuso, Colo.App., 515 P.2d 128.
In making its award of child support, a trial court must weigh the father's ability to pay against the reasonable needs of the children. Franco v. Franco, 161 Colo. 507, 423 P.2d 327. The determination of a proper support award is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and on review the order will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly demonstrated. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249, 372 P.2d 149. Our examination of the record here satisfies us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the award of child support was proper.
The court in its child support order provided in part as follows:
'3) That the Court is aware of the problems associated with payment of child support in this case. These problems stem from the fact that the Defendant is presently residing in Norway and intends to reside in that country. Therefore, the Court orders that Defendant pay child support in a lump sum amount of Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($52,200.00). This sum is based upon the financial conditions, abilities and needs of the parties and the minor children of the parties and was computed by the Court based upon a formula which provides support for each individual child in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per month until such child may reach the age of eighteen (18) years. In the event one of the children should die before reaching the age of eighteen (18) years, the unused sum attributable to that child shall be returned to the Defendant. Further, in the event any of the children shall become emancipated before reaching the age of eighteen (18) years, the unused sum attributable to that child shall also be returned to the Defendant.
It is the intent of this Court that the lump sum child support payment shall discharge the obligations of the Defendant with respect to child support unless there be some change in circumstances which should require review of the question of child support by the Court.
'4) To secure payment of the lump sum child support the Court shall issue a charging order against the Defendant's joint venture interest in that property described as the Maryland Creek Ranch. Said charging order shall require any profits or proceeds that the Defendant may receive from the property known as Maryland Creek Ranch to be made in payment of the lump sum child support. Any profits or proceeds from this property shall be paid into the Registry of the Denver District Court to be distributed as per the formula described above. In the event the profits or proceeds exceed Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($52,200.00) then the amount that exceeds this sum shall be paid to the Defendant.'
C.R.S.1963,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Mizer, In re, 83CA1045
...is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo.App. 376, 522 P.2d 752 (1974). Upon reviewing the record in this matter, however, we conclude that the court did abuse its discretion in denying mother......
-
Anderson's Marriage, In re
...the court may consider the future earning potential of the spouse. See Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475, 391 P.2d 473; Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo.App. 376, 522 P.2d 752. Here, the evidence supports the court's finding that the husband is capable of earning sums greatly in excess of his present ne......
-
Berge v. Berge
...Colorado property interests of the father. With some modifications not here before us, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. 33 Colo.App. 376, 522 P.2d 752. We affirm the court of The trial court's order provided: '4) To secure payment of the lump sum child support the Court shall issue a......
-
Marriage of Valley, In re
...owns his property and is not required to do anything different with the property than he had previously done. See Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo.App. 376, 522 P.2d 752 (1974). However, by threatening to dispose of his property and to put himself beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court so that h......
-
Estate and Trust Forum
...14-6-110. 10. People v. Elliott, 525 P.2d 457 (Colo. 1974). 11. Menor v. Menor, 391 P.2d 473 (Colo. 1964). 12. Id. 13. Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo. App. 376, 522 P.2d 752 (1974), aff'd., 189 Colo. 103,536 P.2d 1135 (1975). 14. Campbell v. People, 42 Colo. 228, 94 P. 256 (1908). 15. Espinoza v. ......
-
Calculation of Potential Income in Child Support Matters
...dissenting. 12. 631 P.2d 1173 (Colo.App. 1981). 13. The mother earned $22,500 in one year in connection with a "special project." 14. 522 P.2d 752 (Colo.App. 1974), aff'd, 536 P.2d 1135 (Colo. 1975). 15. Senate Hearings on H.B. 90-1254, April 25,1990. Senator Wells was the sponsor. 16. Id. ......