Carlton v. Carlton
| Decision Date | 17 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 47717,47717 |
| Citation | 217 Kan. 681,538 P.2d 727 |
| Parties | Mary J. CARLTON, Appellant, v. Jack K. CARLTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order terminating alimony payments to the appellant, Mary J. Carlton. On May 7, 1970, the parties ended a twenty-two year marriage by divorce. The district court ordered an equal division of the property awarding property valued at $49,141 to each. The decree further provided for alimony payments to the appellant-wife of $250 per month until her remarriage or the death of either party. The appellee-husband regularly made such payments until January 15, 1974, when he filed a motion for their termination. On March 18, 1974, the district court terminated said payments effective after February 28, 1974, on the basis that 'it would not be fair, equitable, or just in light of the circumstances as they exist at this time for defendant to . . . continue the alimony payments.'
Appellant claims error in three respects on this appeal. These center around the finding by the trial court that circumstances had changed so as to justify the termination of alimony and the sufficiency of the evidence to support that finding. The purpose of alimony is to provide for the future support of the divorced spouse. (Drummond v. Drummond, 209 Kan. 86, 495 P.2d 994; Herzmark v. Herzmark, 199 Kan. 48, 427 P.2d 465.) The amount thereof is to be based upon the needs of one party and the ability of the other party to pay. (Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 207 Kan. 66, 483 P.2d 1084; Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749, 457 P.2d 60.) A change of circumstances may justify a reduction of alimony. (Blair v. Blair, 210 Kan. 156, 499 P.2d 546.) An examination of the record discloses substantial evidence of a change of circumstances. The role of this court is not that of a trier of fact. We are required to accept the evidence which is most favorable to the prevailing party and where there is substantial competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment, it is our duty to sustain it. (Wehking v. Wehking, 213 Kan. 551, 555, 516 P.2d 1018.) See, also Parsons Mobil Products, Inc. v. Remmert, 216 Kan. 256, 531 P.2d 428.
A large portion of the appellant's brief is devoted to a constitutional attack on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Monslow, Matter of, 72721
...of the trial judge in setting a maintenance amount should be the recipient's needs. In support, he cites Carlton v. Carlton, 217 Kan. 681, 538 P.2d 727 (1975), Martin v. Martin, 5 Kan.App.2d 670, 623 P.2d 527, rev. denied 229 Kan. 670 (1981), and a journal article which analyzes 1982 amendm......
-
Michel v. Michel
...and the ability of the party to pay. In re Marriage of Hair, 40 Kan.App.2d 475, 484, 193 P.3d 504 (2008) (citing Carlton v. Carlton, 217 Kan. 681, 681, 538 P.2d 727 [1975] ),rev. denied 288 Kan. 831 (2009). In Williams v. Williams, 219 Kan. 303, 306, 548 P.2d 794 (1976), the Kansas Supreme ......
-
In re Marriage of Hair
...the amount of maintenance is based on the needs of one of the parties and the ability of the other party to pay. Carlton v. Carlton, 217 Kan. 681, 681, 538 P.2d 727 (1975). In Williams v. Williams, 219 Kan. 303, 306, 548 P.2d 794 (1976), the court set forth elements that a district court ma......
-
Martin v. Martin, 51056
...spouse, and the amount thereof is to be based upon the needs of one party and the ability of the other to pay. Carlton v. Carlton, 217 Kan. 681, 538 P.2d 727 (1975). The trial court has wide discretion when it comes to matters relating to alimony, and its judgment in awarding alimony will n......