Boyd v. Boyd, s. 33470--33675
| Decision Date | 22 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 33470--33675,s. 33470--33675 |
| Citation | 459 S.W.2d 8 |
| Parties | William BOYD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eliza BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Milton F. Napier, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Raymond Howard, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
The plaintiff filed suit for divorce against his wife, who countered with a cross-bill for separate maintenance. Defendant later amended her prayer and asked for a divorce and the custody of the two minor children. After a protracted hearing, Judge Robert L. Aronson awarded the plaintiff the divorce but awarded the defendant the custody of the two children. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay $15.00 per week per child for child support and an additional $350.00 for attorney fees. The court granted the plaintiff reasonable visitation and temporary custody of the two children on Sundays from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. effective immediately to one child and effective as to the other child when she reached age of five years. Defendant appealed.
Defendant also appealed from a judgment entered by Judge Franklin E. Reagan allowing defendant $150.00 as attorney fees on appeal. Both appeals are consolidated here. We shall consider the appeal on the attorney fees first.
The transcript on this appeal shows that on February 3, 1969 defendant filed a Motion for Costs, Expenses and Attorney's Fees In Re Defendant's Appeal. The transcript then shows that this motion was ruled on as follows:
'DEFENDANT'S MOTION SUSTAINED, IN PART
'Thereafter, and on June 13, 1969, Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pending Appeal, was heard and sustained in part; plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant the sum of $150.00 as attorney fees on appeal.'
Then, defendant filed another motion asking for a hearing on the motion on which the court had ruled on June 13, 1969 or in the alternative asking for a new trial. The transcript does not show a ruling on this second motion.
Defendant now contends on this appeal that the award of $150.00 for attorney fees on appeal is inadequate and that the defendant was denied a hearing on this motion. We reject defendant's contentions on two grounds. First, the transcript shows that the motion was heard by the court. Second, the transcript shows that no evidence was offered by the defendant to support this motion. No evidence as to the financial conditions of the parties was introduced by defendant, nor was there any evidence as to the costs of the appeal or as to the value of the services to be rendered by defendant's attorney. It must be noted that this motion was being heard by Judge Reagan who did not hear the divorce trial. So, it cannot be said that Judge Reagan was familiar with the case, and the amount of legal services to be performed by defendant's attorney on appeal. Therefore, there is nothing before us which could be examined to determine the propriety of the trial court's discretionary action. Copenhaver v. Copenhaver, Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 612(7).
Appellant's second motion filed on June 27, 1969 asking for a hearing on this motion was too late. The court had already heard and ruled on this motion. The judgment granting defendant $150.00 as attorney fees is affirmed.
Defendant contends on the appeal of the divorce case that the court erred in awarding plaintiff a divorce because the evidence showed that plaintiff was not entitled to a divorce and that the award for the support of the children was inadequate and that the trial judge was partial. Defendant also contends that the court erred in not admitting a letter from plaintiff's former employer which shows the reason for his leaving that employment.
The trancript consists of four hundred and twelve pages of conflicting testimony. Plaintiff's testimony was as follows. Plaintiff, a teacher, and defendant were married on February 10, 1962 when he was twenty years old. There were two children born of the marriage whose ages were 6 years and 2 1/2 years at time of trial. The parties were separated six times before their final separation in August of 1966. Each time they were separated the defendant left plaintiff. At the time of trial, defendant and the two children were living with her mother.
The parties had financial troubles and without plaintiff's knowledges, defendant made loans for $748.10 and $1,100.00 and signed plaintiff's name to the loan agreements and that plaintiff was sued on the $1,000.00 loan. Defendant refused to tell plaintiff the purpose of the two loans. Defendant cashed plaintiff's savings bonds without his permission. Defendant was frequently seen by plaintiff in the company of another man in a while Cadillac and in a taxicab. Two other witnesses testified that they had been defendant with another man in a white Cadillac. On another occasion defendant was seen by a witness in a cocktail lounge dancing and holding hands with another man. Defendant nagged plaintiff constantly and embarrassed him in the presence of his family. Defendant was an untidy housekeeper. When defendant managed the home finances she failed to pay the utility bills.
On occasions defendant kept a knife under her pillow and on one occasion she had a scissors under her pillow and told plaintiff that he 'had better not go to sleep.' Plaintiff took the knife and scissors from defendant and received a cut on his neck when he took the knife from her.
Other witnesses who were related to plaintiff testified that defendant was an untidy housekeeper and had 'raised her voice' to plaintiff.
Plaintiff's gross salary for 1967 was $7,452.00 but his salary scale for 1968 was $6,670.00 and he gave her $60.00 or $70.00 every two weeks for the home expenses.
During their marriage, defendant worked at the Wig World and at the time of trial she was working at Jewish Hospital in a training program to be a practical nurse.
Defendant's evidence was to the following effect. Two character witnesses testified to the good character of defendant. One witness testified that the home was tidy and she saw plaintiff drinking beer with another woman. Another witness stated that the saw defendant run out of the home screaming with blood running down her legs with plaintiff behind her with a gun. Defendant also testified that plaintiff ran her out of the home while she was dressed in her underclothing and threatened to shoot her because 'he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. White
...abstract statement; this, too, violates Rule 84.04(d) which requires the appellant's 'points relied on' to be specific. Boyd v. Boyd, Mo.App., 459 S.W.2d 8, 12(10). This rule applies to appellate review of court tried cases. Lane v. Katt, Mo.App., 421 S.W.2d 544, For the reasons stated, the......
-
Barber v. M. F. A. Milling Co.
...do violence to the rule which requires a point to be specific. Adams v. White, 488 S.W.2d 289, 294(13) (Mo.App.1972); Boyd v. Boyd, 459 S.W.2d 8, 12(10) (Mo.App.1970). The court of appeals is not obliged to search either the transcript on appeal or the argument portion of an appellant's bri......
-
Freshour v. Schuerenberg
...we add that Rule 84.04(d) is applied in appellate review of court-tried cases with the same force as in the other kind. Boyd v. Boyd, 459 S.W.2d 8, 12(9) (Mo.App.1970). Nonetheless, and desite our justification to dispatch defendant's appeal at this juncture for failure to abide with Rule 8......
-
Lee v. Rolla Speedway, Inc.
...reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous,' are applicable to appellate review of court-tried cases. Boyd v. Boyd, 459 S.W.2d 8, 12(9) (Mo.App.1970). Merely asserting what the alleged errors are without stating 'wherein and why' they are errors neither states the rule no......