O'Berry v. O'Berry
| Decision Date | 19 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 48730 |
| Citation | 183 N.E.2d 539,36 Ill.App.2d 163 |
| Parties | Harriet O'BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Versye O'BERRY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Dixon, Ewell, Graham & Vital, Chicago, for appellant.
Joseph H. and Norman Becker, Harry G. Fins, Chicago, for appellee.
The parties were married on June 16, 1942, and lived as husband and wife until May 21, 1955. They became parents of Evelyn, born on March 15, 1944. On December 29, 1955, a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony for extreme and repeated cruelty on the complaint of the wife was entered. The mother was awarded custody of Evelyn, then 11 years of age, with right of visitation to the father. The decree required that defendant pay to plaintiff $16.50 each week for the support and maintenance of Evelyn 'including reasonable medical bills incurred' in her behalf, 'any extraordinary medical expenses to be borne by defendant.'
On May 31, 1961, plaintiff filed a petition stating that Evelyn, who was then 17 years of age, was graduating from Lindbloom Technical High School in Chicago, had been accepted for admittance to Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; that plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the yearly 'tuition fees' of $1640; that defendant refuses to assist in defraying these additional expenses of Evelyn; that plaintiff incurred additional obligations on behalf of Evelyn of $42 for the purchase of eyeglasses and $400 for dental services which defendant refuses to pay; and that defendant is employed, has 'substantial income' and is well able to maintain Evelyn and defray her dental and college expenses. She requested that he be ordered to pay $400 for dental expenses, $42 for eyeglasses, $1640 for tuition to Ohio State University and reasonable attorney's fees.
On May 31, 1961, the court ordered that the decree be modified to require defendant to pay to plaintiff for the 'next four years' the sum of $100 per month 'while the child is pursuing an education,' and that he pay in installments to plaintiff $400 out of $631 incurred for medical expenses. The order was entered on due notice to defendant and recites that the chancellor was fully advised in the premises and that the parties were present in open court. On June 30, 1961, defendant filed a petition asking that the order of May 31, 1961, be vacated and that he be given a bill of particulars setting out the medical and dental bills incurred for Evelyn. In this petition he says that he is 'unable to support' Evelyn until she reaches the age of twenty-one, that the Divorce Act does not require that a parent support a 'normal child' after she reaches her majority and that the order in that respect is unconstitutional. He further asserts that there is no evidence that the child will be unable to maintain herself after she reaches 18 years of age or that she is likely to become a public charge.
The chancellor denied defendant's petition of June 30, 1961. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the order of May 31, 1961, is contrary to provisions of the Illinois Constitution. The Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elble v. Elble, Gen. No. 67--109
...(See Strom v. Strom, 13 Ill.App.2d 354, 142 N.E.2d 172; Maitzen v. Maitzen, 24 Ill.App.2d 32, 163 N.E.2d 840; O'Berry v. O'Berry, 36 Ill.App.2d 163, 183 N.E.2d 539; Crane v. Crane, 45 Ill.App.2d 316, 196 N.E.2d 27; 1962 Law Forum Since the amendment to section 19 of the Divorce Act (Ch. 40,......
-
Needler v. Needler
...the right decision on the issue presented.' Smith v. Smith, 36 Ill.App.2d 55 at 59, 183 N.E.2d 559 at 561; see also O'Berry v. O'Berry, 36 Ill.App.2d 163, 183 N.E.2d 539. The allowance of attorney's fees is ordinarily a discretionary matter with the trial court and is justified when the cou......
-
Crane v. Crane
...Abbott v. Lee, 13 Ill.App.2d 296, 142 N.E.2d 138, and other cases cited in I.L.P. Courts § 19. After Maitzen came O'Berry v. O'Berry, 36 Ill.App.2d 163, 183 N.E.2d 539, a unanimous decision of the Second Division of this court, approving an order on the father to pay for four years a substa......
-
Storm v. Storm
...reasonable intendment not negatived by the record will be indulged in support of the judgment, order or decree.' O'Berry v. O'Berry, 36 Ill.App.2d 163, 166, 183 N.E.2d 539, 541. In support of his position, defendant relies upon Wick v. Wick, 19 Ill.2d 457, 167 N.E.2d 207. On March 5, 1957, ......