Bruguier v. Bruguier

• Decision Date: 19 March 1951
• Docket Number: No. 160,160
• Citation: Bruguier v. Bruguier, 12 N.J.Super. 350, 79 A.2d 497 (N.J. Super. 1951)
• Parties: BRUGUIER v. BRUGUIER. /466.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 350

12 N.J.Super. 350

79 A.2d 497

BRUGUIER v. BRUGUIER.

No. 160/466.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division.

March 19, 1951.

Edward Farry, Jr., Keyport, for plaintiff.

Harry Wolf, Elizabeth, for defendant.

McLEAN, J.S.C.

This matter is before me on the plaintiff's motion on order to show cause why the weekly allowance heretofore made on the 6th day of August, 1948, 'should not be increased to a sum commensurate with the expenditures necessary for the care, support and maintenance of the two minor children of the marriage', and defendant's motion to require the infant daughter, Yvonne Lenore Bruguier, to desist from using and assuming the name of Yvonne Williams, and for the further order making it possible for defendant to have visitation of his two infant children pursuant to the terms of the decree Nisi heretofore entered in this cause.

Plaintiff's order to show case was returnable on September 22, 1950 and has been continued from time to time pending negotiations between the parties. Defendant's motion was dated February 6, 1951 returnable March 2, 1951 and came before me for argument March 9, 1951.

Meanwhile, pending these proceedings, the plaintiff on October 15, 1950 remarried and removed from Keyport with her two children to Carmel, New York, and defendant remarried December 31, 1950 and since that date has resided at 21 A Pioneer Homes, Elizabeth, New Jersey.

When the parties remarried, the situation so changed on both sides that the whole proceeding should have been discontinued, and they could now with propriety be summarily dismissed. However, inasmuch as the dismissal would result in only a renewal of the applications, in the interest of expedition it will be entertained and disposed of on the merits in the light of the changed circumstances as disclosed by the supplemental affidavits.

The decree Nisi dated August 6, 1948, provided that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $20 per week at the beginning of each week from and after the date of the order as and for the support and maintenance of herself and the infant children of the marriage in her custody. So much of the allowance so ordered to be paid for the benefit of the plaintiff terminated Ipso facto with her remarriage. The obligation of the defendant to support his children continues and the allowance may be adjusted retroactively to the date of plaintiff's remarriage. Roth v. Roth, 10 N.J.Super. 406, 76 A.2d 818.

The amount to be fixed will depend upon the needs of the two children and the ability of the father to provide for them under circumstances now existing. The only evidence before me as to the needs of the children is contained in the affidavit of the plaintiff dated August 14, 1950, which was prior to her remarriage. The facts therein set out are not pertinent at this time, inasmuch as it is conceded that by reason of her remarriage plaintiff's situation has materially improved, and with the generosity of her husband she is able to provide adequately for her children in her present home. The defendant by his remarriage has undertaken to contribute to the support of the three children of his present wife by a former marriage. His present wife is gainfully employed. Defendant's income is $80 per week; his take home pay being about $140 every pay day. Remarriage of the party and the obligations assumed is a fact which the court may now take into consideration in fixing alimony. Padwee v. Padwee, 7 N.J.Super. 101, 72 A.2d 213. Parents are equally responsible for the support and maintenance of their children. Defendant does not complain about continuing...