Berge v. Berge
| Citation | 536 P.2d 1135,189 Colo. 103 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. C--509,C--509 |
| Parties | Trygve BERGE, Petitioner, v. Marilyn Louisa BERGE, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Jack Levine, P.C., David L. Rice, Denver, for petitioner.
Morrato, Gueck & Colantuno, P.C., I. Thomas Bieging, Denver, for respondent.
This is a divorce action commenced on July 16, 1971. The trial court ordered the father to pay child support in a lump sum amount of $52,200. The father resides in Norway. The court ordered that such sum should be a charge against certain 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 appeals.
The trial court's order provided:
'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. Distribution from the funds held by the Registry of the Denver District Court shall be made first to satisfy any arrearages in child support, using the above formula, and then held and disbursed on a monthly basis as described above.'
'6) Child support shall be payable only from the Defendant's interest in said Maryland Creek property, subject to the provision of paragraph No. 4. Failure to make monthly payments specified herein shall not render Defendant in contempt of court. Upon the sale of said property, Plaintiff shall be entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to the then-accrued child support payments, but at no other time shall Plaintiff be entitled to a lump-sum payment.'
I
In his brief here, the father (petitioner) argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding any child support. We need not consider the point because it was not raised in the petition for writ of certiorari. We will state, however, that we agree with the court of appeal's disposition of the issue.
II
The father, in his petition for certiorari, and in the brief, has taken the position that there is no authority for 'lump-sum child support,' and that the court lacked jurisdiction and abused its discretion in making the lump-sum child support a charge against the father's interest in Colorado property. He cites in support of his propositions the following: Laws v. Laws, 164 Colo. 80, 432 P.2d 632 (1967); Giambrocco v. Giambrocco, 161 Colo. 510, 423 P.2d 328 (1967); Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475, 391 P.2d 473 (1964); Brown v. Brown, 131 Colo. 467, 283 P.2d 951 (1955).
It will be noted that the liability of the defendant is limited to income and proceeds from the property charged. This appears reasonable to us. We find nothing in the cases cited proscribing the method of treatment here, except the prohibition in Brown v. Brown, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F.D.I.C. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
...Court would not consider issue not mentioned in petition for certiorari even though matter was argued before it); Berge v. Berge, 189 Colo. 103, 104, 536 P.2d 1135, 1136 (1975) (holding that Supreme Court need not consider issue not raised in petition for The majority concludes that the FDI......
-
State Personnel Bd. v. Lloyd
...briefed in this court. 1 Since the issue is not properly before us on certiorari, we do not address it on appeal. See Berge v. Berge, 189 Colo. 103, 536 P.2d 1135 (1975); see also Carpenter v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 68 F.2d 69 (10th Cir.1933) (assignments of error not raised eit......
-
Johnson v. Wade
...Page v. Hardy, 334 P.2d 782 (Okl.1958). 1 14 C.J.S. Section 150.2 12 O.S.Supp. 1976, Ch. 15, App. 3, Rule 3.13.3 Berge v. Berge, 189 Colo. 103, 536 P.2d 1135 (1975).4 Hair v. Wilson, 391 P.2d 789 (Okl.1964); Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Marrow, 326 P.2d 817 (Okl.1958); City of Hartsh......
-
Mason v. People, 95SC777
...277, 280, 577 P.2d 759, 761 (1978) (issues not mentioned in the petition for certiorari will not be considered); Berge v. Berge, 189 Colo. 103, 104, 536 P.2d 1135, 1136 (1975) (the court need not consider points not raised in the petition for certiorari). Because that question is not before......